As a GM I've always been on the lookout for "Role Master" friendly material.
I was talking to my GM friend and business partner the other day and realized my definition of "RM Friendly" and his did not quite match, and where it did match the priorities were different. I placed "Distinctive Maps" as my #1 followed by "NPCs with clear motivations".
For the GMs out there, what game mastery attributes to a module do you look for or wish there was more of in the products you buy?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Accurate CR's for fight, no plotholes, a cohesive story.
All of these things make for less work that I have to do fixing the module.
Most of Paizo's modules and AP's seem to do this well. There are a few errors occasionally, but not so much that it forces me to do a lot of rework.
Most of the time if I have to change something it's more because of the group I'm GM'ing for.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Accurate CR is a big problem at higher levels, where players familiar with their characters' abilities and designing well can easily steamroller whole categories of monsters and encounters. "Ease of modification" is a good thing at higher-level design.
Interesting encounters (terrain, purpose, having at least 2-3 solutions to different problems) are good.
Plot cohesion and villain cohesion are good. The GM needs to know what the bad guys are up to so they can figure out what to do when the players go in a different direction, which they inevitably will. These need to be predictable and make some sense. Please, no gaping plot holes.
Consider what happens when the PCs use reasonably common spells to bypass encounters or get information. E.g., "what happens if the PCs dig through the wall or d-door and start the dungeon in a different place?" "What happens if they cast <any one of several of high-level divinations>?"
Interesting tactics and situations are fun -- I can put "monster X in room Y" all by myself, but having a combination I hadn't thought of, but that makes sense, is very useful. (It's also a way to help make lower-CR monsters still a viable encounter for the party.)
I accept that I'm going to have to do a decent amount of modification to fit the scene for my players and their goals; make it easy for me to do that modification. I have enough trouble rebuilding statblocks, so do the hard work of making the plot and characters clear and coherent so I don't have to rebuild all of those as well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If there is a complex encounter, I want an explanation of the intent. Worst possible thing is not knowing where to find things.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have been thinking at length on this very thing, so pardon me for the wall of text/verbal spew that follows. I apologize in advance if any of it gets rant like--still trying to sort out various thoughts.
What I want out of a module seems to be very different from what ends up in most modules, or what some people want out of them.
In short: I want a module to save me time.
I want using a module to be as good, if not a better choice, than investing the time it takes to design my own adventure and run it. If I feel like a module adds to my time expense in prepping for the game, it's not a good module. E.g., in a module I'm running right now (Plunder and Peril), I had to redraw the whole map in 5' squares so I could actually use it as a battlemap, because it was in 10' squares. (I'm running a PBP so it's helpful for us to have maps to work off of, and I personally need the visual to help me run combat, particularly when it may be awhile between posts). It took me 2-3 hours to make a new map. A module should not add 2-3 hours of prep time to my game because I can't use the thing it provides as it is. On the other hand, say, Crypt of the Everflame was great in this respect because not only was the map easy to use/recreate, there even used to be a ready-made flip mat with that dungeon on it. (I realize that can't always be doable, but god, it was so nice.)
I want modules to focus on what is helpful to a GM: key NPC stats, useful maps, tactics (as tonyz says, obviously this should focus on aspects unique to the adventure, not something obvious). I love it when a game gives me good NPC stats and information on running them (not a module, but a recent example, Ruins of Azlant 3 does this really well).
For combat, especially ones using complex terrain, advice on starting points of enemies would be extremely useful. I am frequently at a loss as to where enemies would be when an encounter begins and if/when PCs are aware of danger. I think some GMs have a good instinct for this, but I do not. Then because I don't have a good sense of how to get the fight started, it becomes either much harder or too easy than probably was intended. Also, if combat is set in complex terrain, this needs to be adequately reflected in the CR of the encounter (it isn't always) and if the PCs need special means of movement/transit/movement is limited, I need to know how to deal with that (e.g., if there's water, do they have access to a boat/how rough is the water so I can determine the swim DC, etc.).
As wraithstrike notes, cohesive plot without plotholes is also important. Consistency is crucial. Again in the module I am running, it says in one place, a key NPC was entrusted certain information by her husband. Later, it says her husband didn't trust her with certain information. This information is important for the PCs in realizing how much they can't or can trust this PC. Which is it? I have some players who analyze the plot and NPC motivations to the nth degree, often to far deeper than the author or I have really thought through. They will notice inconsistencies and discrepancies that I don't and take it as something being wrong with information that someone told them. While sometimes I can get creative and run with that--sometimes it even creates a story opportunity if I'm lucky--my ability to adapt depends a lot on the nature of the plot to begin with. Poorly conveyed information in a fairly linear tale can cause the game to come to a halt as I have to say, "Uh, sorry, ignore that, this is what really happened..." While I do try to be creative and avoid that where possible, I can't always manage it.
I like it if the story is fairly simple--I can add complexity if I want, but if I can keep the key plot points in my head easily, then I don't have to keep referring back to things and that makes it easier to focus on the PCs' questions and actions.
What I do NOT want:
1) Scenarios where the PCs must succeed in only one, very specific way for the plot to proceed, and/or where no suggestions are provided if the PCs fail or take another direction. Tests of skill should provide some alternatives if they are the only way forward; everything shouldn't depend on someone getting that one DC 30 skill check rolled. Extremely difficult fights should also offer suggestions for what might happen if the PCs lose the fight--do they get captured? Killed? Sold as slaves? Sometimes losses can even lead to interesting alternative routes forward but plot-relevant advice would be helpful.
Some modules assume PCs solve a problem or react to a situation in a very specific way when they might be done differently -- again for example, in the module I'm using, there is a scenario where the PCs need to get transport to continue the story. There's a scene were IF they help/rescue this one character, she will provide them transit. However, the scenario is set up so that the PCs might either choose not to rescue this character or fail to do so (and if you are following the module's script exactly as written, they won't know they need the NPC's help until after the rescue is over). If they fail to get the transport, the story cannot actually proceed. A clever GM can come up with alternatives (and in my game I was squeezing the module into Skull and Shackles so I had an alternative readily available) or even go off script and run a new adventure from there, but again--this evades the point of using modules to save you time.
The early part in Plunder and Peril has many examples of "doing it right" -- there's a "chase" scene where several different ways are provided for overcoming various obstacles. There's an encounter or two that could be a fight or a negotiation or a little bit of both. Even in the final combat I can see ways of moving forward if the PCs lost the fight (because there are other NPCs around who might have rescued them).
2) Loads of useless fluff that is irrelevant to the PC's adventure. The PCs are the heroes of the story. All information should be interesting and/or relevant to the PCs, or provide insight on RPing key NPCs that in turn, help the PCs' adventure be more interesting. I do not want three paragraphs wasted about the lengthy backstory of that pebble on the ground that the PCs don't even walk near. I don't care what a person did in that building 100 years ago if it isn't important information to what the PCs are doing now. Again, examples of "doing it the way I find useless" in the module I am running: there is a whole dungeon that was the secret hideout of a pirate that the PCs are looking for. Apparently before it was the secret hideout, it was an old fortress belonging to a dead cyclops empire. There are zero (0), absolutely no cyclopes in the adventure, and what they used the building for, save for one or two rooms, is entirely superfluous. Their history has NO bearing whatsoever on the story. That they built the building could have been covered in a sentence or two. And yet hundreds of words are wasted on stuff like "and here in the dungeon is where the cyclopes ate their apples" (<-a hyperbolic, made up sentence to illustrate the pointlessness of the information), but yet there is no information on, for example, Diplomacy DCs to talk down an important, frantic/gone-mad NPC, or where the big bad is actually specifically located on the map when terrain and visibility really matters. There is hardly even information on how it was used as the hideout, and THAT would actually be far more relevant to the story and what the PCs might do with the area afterward. Word count is crucial in module writing, where you also have to leave so much room for art and handouts and stats and maps, and wasting it on backstory that isn't even relevant to the module is a criminal act in my opinion. (Note: do not allow professional editors to determine what is and isn't a criminal act, as their priorities may be skewed.)
I know a lot of folks buy modules as reading material and enjoy rando seemingly irrelevant narrative and I'd just remind anyone who has gotten this far that I am answering the question, "what makes a module GM friendly in your opinion?" I do not believe lengthily described fluff that a GM can't use, especially when it's there in lieu of other campaign-relevant info, is GM-friendly--in my opinion of course.
DQ, wouldn't a battlemap in 10' squares just require you to use icons half the size of the squares? That sounds easier than redrawing it.
This is coming from someone who never uses modules, mind.
<snip>
Consider what happens when the PCs use reasonably common spells to bypass encounters or get information.
Oh ya, not anticipating common spells drives me batty! My personal pet peeve is an interesting situation or encounter that breaks completely with simply having a Paladin in the party. Not anticipating dimension door in mid-level encounters is just as annoying.
RE: Stat blocks
Are you rebuilding statblocks because you don't like the format or because you're modifying the critter/NPC?
And related, are you embarking on module modification because you are providing a very customized experience, or do the modules you use consistently not meet a particular need or even standards?
The last off-the-shelf module I ran worked well for me up to the point my PCs deviated wildly from the encounter areas and I didn't have the heart to put them back on a rail because they were having so much fun. So it turned out I paid for a full module but ran only a third. Heh.
<snip>
Most of the time if I have to change something it's more because of the group I'm GM'ing for.
Are these role-playing based changes or mechanical changes to things like CRs or statblocks because the group is fairly advanced (for example, a table of all veteran players)?
If there is a complex encounter, I want an explanation of the intent. Worst possible thing is not knowing where to find things.
Hey Sissyl,
Yeah, intent is pretty important to me on a complex encounter. I dislike the "this encounter is complex because the previous two were simply to drain some resources for the PC" formula. I love me a crunchy encounter. Not so much if it is crunchy for the sake of being crunchy. And encounters where the monster/villains have no motivation make me sad and turn the PCs into simple murder hobos.
For not knowing where to find things, is that like mechanical aspects of the module like where is the custom magical item detailed at?
DQ, wouldn't a battlemap in 10' squares just require you to use icons half the size of the squares?
A single square that is 10 feet on a side becomes four squares of 5 feet per side. You'd have to have icons that were 1/4 the size of your 5 foot square icons.
You can have 4 icons, each in their own 5 foot square, that would have to squeeze together into a single 10 foot square.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not knowing where to find things: An otherwise great adventure I got has this problem. The party travels north to investigate a place. They are followed in this by a second, villainous party. All this is clear. However, reading the finishing timeline, one finds out that there was a THIRD party who went before them, and this matters, but nothing more is explained about them.
DQ, wouldn't a battlemap in 10' squares just require you to use icons half the size of the squares? That sounds easier than redrawing it.
This is coming from someone who never uses modules, mind.
If she's doing PBP. She's likely taking the map and putting it online. It's not so easy to just redo the squares. I would redo it in roll20 by not having the lines show up if modules allow that and then doubling the size of the map. 10' squares are pain in the butt though, no matter how you try to redo them.
Are these role-playing based changes or mechanical changes to things like CRs or statblocks because the group is fairly advanced (for example, a table of all veteran players)?<snip>
Most of the time if I have to change something it's more because of the group I'm GM'ing for.
Sometimes the group is fairly advanced. That is the most common reason. Other times they had an atypical party, such as no 9th level casters who are expect to solve certain problems. I also tend to get groups who jump off the rails.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey DQ, no need to apologize for any part of your epic reply. I was expecting commentary like "hey statblocks need to be formatted properly" or "map keys not on the map so I can VTT a cut of it" etc. You made a lot of valid points and criticisms of where modules are distinctly not friendly. I hear you.
<Snip>
2) Loads of useless fluff that is irrelevant to the PC's adventure. The PCs are the heroes of the story. All information should be interesting and/or relevant to the PCs, or provide insight on RPing key NPCs that in turn, help the PCs' adventure be more interesting. I do not want three paragraphs wasted about the lengthy backstory of that pebble on the ground that the PCs don't even walk near. I don't care what a person did in that building 100 years ago if it isn't important information to what the PCs are doing now. Again, examples of "doing it the way I find useless" in the module I am running: there is a whole dungeon that was the secret hideout of a pirate that the PCs are looking for. Apparently before it was the secret hideout, it was an old fortress belonging to a dead cyclops empire. There are zero (0), absolutely no cyclopes in the adventure, and what they used the building for, save for one or two rooms, is entirely superfluous. Their history has NO bearing whatsoever on the story. That they built the building could have been covered in a sentence or two. And yet hundreds of words are wasted on stuff like "and here in the dungeon is where the cyclopes ate their apples" (<-a hyperbolic, made up sentence to illustrate the pointlessness of the information), but yet there is no information on, for example, Diplomacy DCs to talk down an important, frantic/gone-mad NPC, or where the big bad is actually specifically located on the map when terrain and visibility really matters. There is hardly even information on how it was used as the hideout, and THAT would actually be far more relevant to the story and what the PCs might do with the area afterward. Word count is crucial in module writing, where you also have to leave so much room for art and handouts and stats and maps, and wasting it on backstory that isn't even relevant to the module is a criminal act in my opinion. (Note: do not allow professional editors to determine what is and isn't a criminal act, as their priorities may be skewed.)I know a lot of folks buy modules as reading material and enjoy rando seemingly irrelevant narrative and I'd just remind anyone who has gotten this far that I am answering the question, "what makes a module GM friendly in your opinion?" I do not believe lengthily described fluff that a GM can't use, especially when it's there in lieu of other campaign-relevant info, is GM-friendly--in my opinion of course.
I will admit that when designing and writing a module, this area is tough. It has been my experience that modules that define an area in a "sandbox" way without making assumptions or putting down rails needs to describe areas and NPCs carefully and with enough detail, because the entire point of that area is not driving the PCs to one particular person or place in a specific order (the Village of Homlet comes to mind, where, technically, the PCs do don't need to interact with anybody after find the location of the Moat House).
So, one GMs fluff is another GMs saving grace.
But, all your examples I myself have encountered, so yeah, filler that introduces conflict that has no benefit to the narrative (or the PCs), or worse, no conflict as all is just that, filler. And the lore without PC context is just as bad. It's super important for a superior, quality adventure module to have a great setting. But if the lore only enhances the setting without any relevance to the PCs, well, that's just rolling the dice that some GM, somewhere, will find it useful. Its called an adventure for a reason.
These module shortcomings are indicative of poor editing, rushed design or the whole not being thoroughly play-tested (perhaps a too short of a feedback loop). Sometimes all three. And fluff that has no use is actually a sin that spirals out of control--I've encountered modules that repeatedly failed to provide enough context to provide me a way to have my PCs care about an area and/or the people within. And the reason was obvious--too much time talking about the wrong topics, usually related to the villain, and not enough about motivation, or setting enhancement.
Wow, all these replies are great. Thanks!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well-written narrative descriptions that the GM can just read out. (Paizo are quite good at this.)
Clearly drawn maps. Remembering that space is three-dimensional (can the PCs fly over this?)
Details suggestions for handling the PCs doing something other than the most obvious actions in the most obvious order. (To do this well, an adventure needs to be tested with multiple groups and then edited to account for the unexpected things they did.)
Suggestions for how to make the adventure more or less challenging for more/less experienced players.
Detailed information - but in terms of how this is to be conveyed to the players. Extraneous information is a distraction, and if there's no way for the players to find out the villain's backstory, the GM probably doesn't need to know either. (And if the villain's backstory is necessary to make sense of his actions, then the players need a way to find it out.)
Stat blocks that contain all the information needed. I shouldn't have to look up obscure abilities from Ultimate Combat to know that a mook can reroll a saving throw once per day.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think GM friendly module specifically is about quality of adventure, accuracy of how challenging encounters are or how much sense the plot makes, all three of those things help to make GM's job easier of course, but that is just side effect of having good quality. Besides, even then its really subjective. For example, that above mentioned map in plunder & peril? I run roll20 games, so it was really easy and fast to make it into 5 feet map, so to me chapter 3 was fastest one to prep. Same way, two different persons could think that plot of the module is great and awful and how accurate the challenge rating is differs based on party composition and how PCs/GM runs the game.
I think "GM friendliness" is mostly how much prepping they need to do before they are able to run the adventure fluently without having to pause to check how things work, if module would require gm to remember multiple subsystems at same time, it isn't very friendly to gm.
Module could be great and awesome, those subsystems could enhance the experience, but newbiew gm would definitely have hard time remembering them all without tons of prep and checking how they work during session slows things down a ton.
(BTW, tip for roll20 players and 10/15/20 maps: Fit them to the normal sized grid as if they were 5ft squares and then reduce size of the grid and remember to update unit size correctly. For example, with 10 ft maps, use 0.5 grid size and unit size is 10 ft. Same works with all map sizes really, like with 15 ft map you just use grid size 0.3333... and so on. Its easy and I feel dumb most of my players knew how to do it while I figured it out after a year <_<;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are some good answers here.
As a gm what I want the most is for the module to inspire me. I need to see a grand exciting outline so I can fill in and dream up excellent responses to the characters in play. When they loot the ogres pockets, or go slightly off script I want to have enough imagination juice to roll with it.
Being able to find information like what an npc looks like on the fly is really important.
I also like good comments on how dungeon rooms interlink. Party makes a huge explosion in room 8a, I want to be able to quickly respond to it.
Lastly I want it to be obvious players have meaningful choices. Nothing worse than a railroad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
<snip>
RE: Stat blocksAre you rebuilding statblocks because you don't like the format or because you're modifying the critter/NPC?
And related, are you embarking on module modification because you are providing a very customized experience, or do the modules you use consistently not meet a particular need or even standards?
I have my own custom statblock formula (everything I need goes in 3-4 lines, except for spells/SLAs), but mostly it's rewriting and adding stuff to match with what my players are doing.
Module modification tends to be "I need more/tougher monsters" because I often have (or had, when I was GMing) a group of 5-7 good optimizers so I needed to rewrite monsters to provide a challenge and/or some additional encounters. Sometimes I had ongoing sideplots that needed to be addressed, and there were always extra encounters to throw in.
Speaking of which, I like modules with some fairly sandboxy elements because I can rewrite or add parts of them to suit. (Kingmaker, I'm looking at you -- wonderful to be able to throw out some silly encounters and add sidequests tailored to my players!)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For stat blocks:
I want to know what the base stats of the NPC are before all the prep spells and potion consumption. Sometimes the PCs don't give the NPCs 5 rounds of prep time. YET, I also want to know what the stat block looks like after all of the preparation. In short, I don't want to be going through stat blocks on the fly.
At this point in Pathfinder's complexity, I'd like digital copies to link to feats, abilities, and spells. It's already a pain in the prat to look up what each ability is to make sure I know whether it's a stat bonus already baked in or a maneuver that has special rules.
If a martial has several combat options that impact the math, expand the melee/ranged attack line for my convenience. So regular sword, Power attack with the sword, Vital Strike with the sword, Power Attacking Vital Strike with the sword, etc. It's extra space, but it's helpful and martial stat blocks are usually shorter than casters anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
DQ, wouldn't a battlemap in 10' squares just require you to use icons half the size of the squares? That sounds easier than redrawing it.
This is coming from someone who never uses modules, mind.
If she's doing PBP. She's likely taking the map and putting it online. It's not so easy to just redo the squares. I would redo it in roll20 by not having the lines show up if modules allow that and then doubling the size of the map. 10' squares are pain in the butt though, no matter how you try to redo them.
This, plus I have played in games where they do just try to put icons in 1/4 (as Crystal Seas noted) of the square, but it can be hard to remember the scaling, and it has caused some confusion before. It also borks things like determining/drawing spell radii with precision (especially if the spell radius is 5 feet and crosses over into the squares wierdly). I guess I should say, I didn't HAVE TO redraw the map but I found it valuable to do so. Also full disclosure: in this case, I know the site could possibly become a future stronghold belonging to the PCs. I wanted it to be in standard game scale so they could plan any renovations without confusion. And in that, redrawing the map was helpful to me so I can edit it to update their renovations--in that my choice to do so is in no way the module's fault, to be totally fair.
Perhaps the map was a poor example, especially as it seems to have distracted folks from the topic of the thread. I just used it because it was recent in my memory. My point in context was the way the module was done it added time to my prep time. My overall concern is that modules should not add to the GM's prep time, they should save it. No matter if that involves mapping, restatting monsters, etc.
I will admit that when designing and writing a module, this area is tough. It has been my experience that modules that define an area in a "sandbox" way without making assumptions or putting down rails needs to describe areas and NPCs carefully and with enough detail, because the entire point of that area is not driving the PCs to one particular person or place in a specific order (the Village of Homlet comes to mind, where, technically, the PCs do don't need to interact with anybody after find the location of the Moat House).
So, one GMs fluff is another GMs saving grace.
But, all your examples I myself have encountered, so yeah, filler that introduces conflict that has no benefit to the narrative (or the PCs), or worse, no conflict as all is just that, filler. And the lore without PC context is just as bad. It's super important for a superior, quality adventure module to have a great setting. But if the lore only enhances the setting without any relevance to the PCs, well, that's just rolling the dice that some GM, somewhere, will find it useful. Its called an adventure for a reason.
I see what you are saying. I think the key issue here is how the author prioritizes information. In my example, there was a lot of information I felt I NEEDED that the the module didn't provide. I needed to know where the big bad was hiding, more than "in this general (very large) vicinity." I needed to know how to handle certain NPCs in complicated situations. I needed more information on potential ways to handle a possible fight that involves a very large number of combatants, where rolling for each character might get infeasible or create a lot of work for me at least.
Then, INSTEAD of this information I could have found extremely helpful, I got a lot of background fluff that had absolutely nothing to do with the scenario. Sure it could have been useful if things veered off in another direction or I reused the dungeon for a different adventure, but the information was prioritized badly, given when other, more tactical information could have been better put to use.
I feel like when an author wants to wax fluffy on something, he or she should ask themselves, "Am I just trying to shoehorn in a story I really want to tell that has nothing to do with the module, or am I adding something a creative GM can make use of?" As in other modes of writing, sometimes you need to be willing to "kill your darlings" for the sake of information prioritization.
On the subject of statblocks
I agree with whoever said upthread that all statblocks should be in one place. While overall I generally like how Paizo's modules and APs are laid out, one thing that drives me crazy is how they put key NPCs and monsters in the back of the book, but "lesser" statblocks in with the main text. Then in some fights you have to flip back and forth between the statblock in the main text and the one in the back. Since I've been using Plunder and Peril in a lot of examples of what not to do: the final fight requires you to flip between the final encounter page, the NPC appendix, AND the monster appendix, all quite different locations. It's easier to do digitally--especially if have the pdf and you can copy out the stats into another document, but even that takes a little reformatting work (runs into the "saves time" problem). I'd be frustrated if I were trying to run a fight like that the "old fashioned way" at the table though--and I feel like, even though more and more gamers are using digital tools to assist them, we shouldn't yet assume everyone does.
Personally, I'd rather see all statblocks in a single appendix in the back of the book. I also agree key abilities need to be explained, even if in some kind of short form, especially if crucial to combat tactics.
For stat blocks:
I want to know what the base stats of the NPC are before all the prep spells and potion consumption. Sometimes the PCs don't give the NPCs 5 rounds of prep time. YET, I also want to know what the stat block looks like after all of the preparation. In short, I don't want to be going through stat blocks on the fly.
At this point in Pathfinder's complexity, I'd like digital copies to link to feats, abilities, and spells. It's already a pain in the prat to look up what each ability is to make sure I know whether it's a stat bonus already baked in or a maneuver that has special rules.
If a martial has several combat options that impact the math, expand the melee/ranged attack line for my convenience. So regular sword, Power attack with the sword, Vital Strike with the sword, Power Attacking Vital Strike with the sword, etc. It's extra space, but it's helpful and martial stat blocks are usually shorter than casters anyway.
Hey roguerouge,
A statblock that list all combinations eat pages like no tomorrow. In a PDF, as long as it is bookmarked, that isn't a consideration, but then the printed module doesn't have page number parity with the PDF (a minor annoyance to some players), which then increases the production cost of the module.
For PDF, would an appendix at the end of the module consisting of nothing but all-combination statblocks be helpful to you?
Hi DQ,
So, to sum up: lore/NPC/setting fluff is bad. Module red-meat the DM can use is good. I totally agree.
On the subject of statblocks
I agree with whoever said upthread that all statblocks should be in one place. While overall I generally like how Paizo's modules and APs are laid out, one thing that drives me crazy is how they put key NPCs and monsters in the back of the book, but "lesser" statblocks in with the main text. Then in some fights you have to flip back and forth between the statblock in the main text and the one in the back. Since I've been using Plunder and Peril in a lot of examples of what not to do: the final fight requires you to flip between the final encounter page, the NPC appendix, AND the monster appendix, all quite different locations. It's easier to do digitally--especially if have the pdf and you can copy out the stats into another document, but even that takes a little reformatting work (runs into the "saves time" problem). I'd be frustrated if I were trying to run a fight like that the "old fashioned way" at the table though--and I feel like, even though more and more gamers are using digital tools to assist them, we shouldn't yet assume everyone does.
So I am just going to toss this out there because I have spent hours (and hours) (with some more hours) on statblock design and placement.
Would this work for you?
**Statblock of minor critters and NPCs that aren't part of encounter appear in the text as abbreviated. DM gets a description of NPC or critter, along with attributes and other things to help describe the setting
**At the end of the chapter (section), the statblocks are printed in their entirety
**For encounters, all statblocks are full and appear in text with the encounter (even if they take up a lot of space)
Hi Moonclanger,
I buy adventures because I don't (always) have time to write my own.
For me the ideal adventure - the ultimate time-saver - is a full-length campaign that takes a party of novice-level characters right up to retirement level. So as the GM I don't have to worry about inserting the adventure into my campaign, because the adventure is a campaign unto itself. All I need to do is read it, ask my players to generate beginning-level characters, and run it.
Sounds like a Paizo Adventure Path, doesn't it? And the ready supply of Adventure Paths is what I like most about Pathfinder, because before Paizo came along such adventures weren't that common. Adventures tended to be stand-alone affairs or campaigns written for experienced characters.
Unfortunately I've yet to find a really great Adventure Path. Different writers means that quality varies from adventure to adventure (a typical AP might include one excellent adventure, two good ones, and three that need work). Nor am I fond of the physical product - they tend to fall apart, the maps are over-detailed and hard to read and you can't write on the glossy paper.
Inconsistent quality from one part of the AP to the next happens a lot, doesn't it? I've also noticed editorial and play-test issues. As in, the module had play testing by veteran players with experienced DM and not new players, or play tested by new players and not veterans. Sometimes in the same module. At least I think that is what was going on.
I am super interested in the physical products you are buying. Are they the softcover or hardcover versions?
snarky answer: one where the first encounter TPKs the party, minimal paperwork and stuff to do.
reasonable answer: There are board similarities with plays but player action makes it participatory and dynamic. Parameters; player engagement, details that lend believability, challenging players without overwhelming them unless that's the goal, cohesiveness and arrangement of plot actions and responses, believability of characterizations and usually developing sympathy with the players (much like story telling or a play).
Modules or scenarios should be self contained(for ease of use) but that doesn't make them better. It does lend itself to customizing some individual characters in the product. It also tends to cut down on variety as printing the stat blocks takes up page count.
I will snark back: I have an introduction encounter where if a Level 1 PC starts using lethal force against the wrong person in a bar fight, the assassin sitting in the corner eating his dinner drops a smoke bomb and kills whomever drew blood.
I have yet to have that happen. But a bad part of me has hope.
But I digress.
Reasonable answer was reasonable. It's hard for a module writer to divorce himself from the narrative and work on the module attributes that support the PCs narrative.
But that should always be the goal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Inconsistent quality from one part of the AP to the next happens a lot, doesn't it? I've also noticed editorial and play-test issues. As in, the module had play testing by veteran players with experienced DM and not new players, or play tested by new players and not veterans. Sometimes in the same module. At least I think that is what was going on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey! I've been annoying enough to change my avatar name. WOO WOO.
Thanks everyone for the great discussion. I'll add my take on GM friendly modules, most of which has already been talked about above:
Prioritized Lore: Lore that directly impacts the PCs has priority over descriptive text that has no consequence to the current adventure but may be beneficial to the GM in other ways (such as modifying their own game world). The Dame with a lore-based secret isn’t as interesting as the Dame with a lore-based secret that motivates her to help or hinder the PCs based on what they do and say.
Prioritized Setting: Related, setting the PCs most likely will be interested in receive priority with description and narrative (and maps!).
Impactful Encounters: All encounters are impactful and have weight. There are no fluffy-bunny fro-fro encounters of attrition shoved into the module either as filler to get the PCs experience points so they can challenge the Big Bad (that the module writers are over-enamored with to the exclusion of the journey to get to the big bad), make some narrative point rather than the PCs making the narrative points, pad the page count or other dubious reasons not having anything to do with adventures GMs want to run. There should be little to no encounters designed to test if the PCs can properly manage resources in a series of combats. Most encounters leave players with a sense of accomplishment and sense of heroic wonder that they talk about away from the game table. The majority of the combat encounters have the capability of dropping heroes to the ground, and if the players don’t combined arms, death or TPK.
Dynamic Plot and Villains based on PC Actions: The PCs do things, and it impacts the world in “real-time.” They do more on their day-to-day interactions than change the life of a stable-boy tipped 100 GP. PCs can influence, and be influenced by, the story’s movers and shakers because they themselves are movers and shakers. Good plot and good villains in a living, breathing game are dynamic based on motives. Rather than dedicated pages for lore for the sake of world-building, let the PCs build their own world by dedicated pages in anticipating common adventure party directions and actions--let them build the world. If the players wanted static quest givers with explanation points over their heads, they would play a MMO designed in the early 2000’s.
Friendly Book Mechanics: PDFs for free when buying the print version. Quality hardcover book printed in color on thick paper you can write on. Module text dedicated to describing dynamic monsters and NPCs that could change tactics based on their overall motives and PC actions. Good stat blocks that are easy to read. Clear maps that can be used in a Virtual Table Top (VTT) program by having the map key in the module text rather than on the map. Proper developmental editing from an experienced RPG-savvy editor and comprehensive, not token, play-testing.
Cohesive Adventuring in an Adventure Path: An adventure path should take a character from Level 1 to Level 20 (or several levels beyond) with a distinctive end. Doing that without putting PCs (or, just admit it, the players) on rails is no easy task, but it is possible with hard work and play testing. The adventure should provide a foundation for the next in a manner that seems organic and plausible. Modules that come next should anticipate several major possibilities of the prior adventure and dedicate text to help the GM transition her players into the next part of the game world without negating their prior hard-won efforts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The most work comes from major plot holes and adventures that heavily depend on the PCs solving encounters in very narrow, specific ways. Or assume the PCs will know metagame information.
The worst experience I ever had running a module came from Shore to Sea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Somewhat related:
One thing that I noticed in Shackled City, which Paizo doesn't do as much is to give the GM background information that the party never knows about. Admittedly it has sold me on running or buying an adventure, but the players still have to be sold on wanting to play it at times, and to continue playing the adventure.
What I do is allow for knowledge checks to learn information, and other times I will give NPC's information to pass along to the PC's. Sometimes it's given as a fact, other times as a rumor, but in either event letting the PC's know a little more of what's happening behind the scenes can draw them into the story.
PS:I do think the GM may need to know things that the players dont know so he doesnt have any questions about plot holes, and if the players ask certain questions he has a way to guide them to the answer.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want to say it again that GM style between people are very different :P As example, some GMs never suggest players what they could do and only rely on if players happen to think about it or tell them information they would have to go way out of their way to find out, other GM other hand are much more blabbermouths about what players can do or about background details of the adventure. And that is fine, different strokes for different people, one gm's "metaknowledge" is another group's playstyle.
That is why you can get comments like "This AP is the greatest AP" "Eh? I think its not that great" without neither of people being "wrong". Different GMing styles suit different modules differently, same about player styles. You can't have module that fits everyone's style perfectly and I find it rude to assume everyone runs the game same way everyone else does.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Going add two separate replies with very different topics.
Background Lore If a good chunk of text is going into NPC or location backgrounds, please give ways for the players to have a chance of discovering some of it in character.
Its sad to have pages of really interesting backstory for an NPC 99 out of 100 parties will probably just fight with no more dialog than them cursing the PCs for getting in the way.
So if writing background lore, ask yourself 'how are the players most likely to learn this?' and be honest, is the answer 'chatting to the DM after the adventure is finished' ?
Diaries, letters, history books, more friendly NPCs that know the story or even just parts the PCs would know with the right knowledge checks - anything like this is always good.
It doesn't need to hand them the whole thing, but just some clues that let them speculate at least.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maps If you want make my life easier as a GM, when doing maps, please avoid -
1) Walls and doors that don't align to the grid. E.g. rooms that are 3.5 squares wide or doors that are half in one square and half in another.
2) Multi-room buildings at 45 degrees to the grid (or any angle other than parallel to it)
3) Scales other than 5ft a square (assuming its a map to be drawn out and have minis put down)
All of those make a map GM-unfriendly for me and waste my time before or during a session.
As a GM I'd rather have an old style basic D&D style map that looks like it was drawn on graph paper than a beautiful picture that has had a grid overlaid on it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi DQ,
So, to sum up: lore/NPC/setting fluff is bad. Module red-meat the DM can use is good. I totally agree.
Hi Anthony. :)
I would clarify lore irrelevant to the PCs/adventure at hand should be avoided. That kind of information should be reserved for Gazetteers and the like.
Fluff can be offered--if there's room after all the essential stuff is put in--if it assists with rounding out the adventure.
So I am just going to toss this out there because I have spent hours (and hours) (with some more hours) on statblock design and placement.Would this work for you?
**Statblock of minor critters and NPCs that aren't part of encounter appear in the text as abbreviated. DM gets a description of NPC or critter, along with attributes and other things to help describe the setting
**At the end of the chapter (section), the statblocks are printed in their entirety
**For encounters, all statblocks are full and appear in text with the encounter (even if they take up a lot of space)
I could work with that. It would be better than what Paizo does which is scatter statblocks inconsistently throughout.
Personally, I'd rather have a mini-statblock in the encounter/narrative text (e.g., where it just lists the creature, XP, and HP and maybe a couple other key stats) (if it's a non-combat encounter, just the microstablock and a few key skill bonuses would be fine), and all full statblocks in the back, so it's easier to read the adventure progression without it being truncated by statblocks. It would be cool if the stat appendix could be pulled out as separate from the main module. BUT I am biased: this is also how I lay out my own adventure notes when I am running a self-designed campaign. I just keep stats totally separate from notes on the story/narrative. So obviously I know that works for me. It may not work for others, possibly not even the majority of module users.
Its sad to have pages of really interesting backstory for an NPC 99 out of 100 parties will probably just fight with no more dialog than them cursing the PCs for getting in the way.
But if the PCs are facing an intelligent opponent, providing some dialogue for them is better than nothing - a lot of adventures provide nothing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is very specific but... not too many unique, Pathfinder specific from X book opponents. While it is great storywise it takes me forever to get them on Fantasy Grounds. So "goblins" please, not special goblins stated somewhere :)
My worst problem is time. The rest I can work around.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its sad to have pages of really interesting backstory for an NPC 99 out of 100 parties will probably just fight with no more dialog than them cursing the PCs for getting in the way.But if the PCs are facing an intelligent opponent, providing some dialogue for them is better than nothing - a lot of adventures provide nothing.
I'm thinking particularly of several Paizo AP NPCs that have a good page or more of background story - most of which they very definitely won't talk about to the party about. For example
What I meant by 'no more dialog than them cursing the PCs' was that the circumstances in which the PCs run into them is almost certain to quickly become a fight, not a conversation where their story might come out.
<snip>
I actually had an online discussion with an AP writer a year or so ago, and he said that it was done to make the maps more "interesting."
<snip>
OUCH. My love of Pathfinder stems from "the dance." That is, the tactical battlefield combined-arms aspects, which as a GM you hope is book-ended by role-playing. Maps should be interesting because they play on the strengths of the Pathfinder system, not ignore it!
The thing that bothers me is when maps are given that are too large to be used. For example, in Rise of the Runelords there is a map that was designed at one square = 20 feet. I couldn't have it printed out, because the full map would have been 10' by 12'. Not only would it have been large enough to cover the entire floor of the room if I didn't have any furniture in there, it would have cost hundreds of dollars to print.
I remember this map. It was one of the worst maps that I have ever had to work with because of how big it was.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I meant by 'no more dialog than them cursing the PCs' was that the circumstances in which the PCs run into them is almost certain to quickly become a fight, not a conversation where their story might come out.
Oh, I absolutely agree with you. There's a character called Goti Runecaster in Jade Regent who gets a full page of backstory explaining his life as a half-troll spriggan, rejected by both parents and adopted by an Irrisen hermit-witch who lived near a rift between the First World and Golarion...
But all the PCs know is a rumor that he's one of the leaders of the local bad guys, possibly second in command.
When they meet him, he's probably trying to ambush them invisibly in a corridor while they're fighting some zombies, and unless the GM changes things, he dies without saying a word.
I just think that if we're leaving out the page of backstory, there would be worse ways to use the space saved than to suggest some fun PC-cursing dialogue for him to say.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
<snip>
I actually had an online discussion with an AP writer a year or so ago, and he said that it was done to make the maps more "interesting."
<snip>
OUCH. My love of Pathfinder stems from "the dance." That is, the tactical battlefield combined-arms aspects, which as a GM you hope is book-ended by role-playing. Maps should be interesting because they play on the strengths of the Pathfinder system, not ignore it!
I remember a few map-involved rounds of RPG Superstar, both the "season" I competed in and others, where some judges (though typically, not community members) complained when maps were "too grid-bound" or when north was always the top of the map.* Even when at the same time complaining in other areas about maps not being user-friendly to GMs without ever seeing their own hypocrisy.
There seems to be a belief among a few designers and other game pros that "different" almost always equals "better." This is an extremely flawed assumption, to say the least. Yes, it can be refreshing to see deviation from game tropes when done well. But if your (generic "you") "difference" makes the game you are writing for less easy to play, frankly, you're doing it wrong.
I accept that in game maps that there may be some deviations from the versatility of "reality" for purposes of necessary simplification. For game purposes, I will always choose a map I can easily to use compared to one I can't, no matter how prettily drawn.
(Speaking of, that map I had to redraw in Plunder and Peril is also in part on that dreaded "angle", though I didn't have it in me to redesign the dungeon to make it easier to use in that respect. If I had more time I might have just made a new dungeon entirely, just using the same map markers.)
Roleplay and storytelling is crucial to me and I don't always like combat-heavy games, but a wibbly wobbly map isn't going to really improve the story any more than it will improve that gameplay; there's just no point to it.
(I also agree upthread that Tinalles's maps look fine--the grid is still very usable.)
* Sometimes it does make sense to make the "top" direction not north, but this is usually for very specific purposes... e.g., you're drawing a city ward for which there is an existent larger map; the larger map indicates where "north" is, but for the smaller, more detailed ward map you decide to rotate the map so that it is easier to align the image to a usable grid. But the point here is that there is a specific purpose to making the map in that direction (so people understand how one map fit into another or fits into the gameworld). If it doesn't MATTER, it's best to leave things to convention (top=north_) to avoid confusion. In a game, avoiding confusion is more important than looking "cool" to someone who is easily distracted by meaningless changes in convention for no particular reason other than to do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
<snip>
I accept that in game maps that there may be some deviations from the versatility of "reality" for purposes of necessary simplification. For game purposes, I will always choose a map I can easily to use compared to one I can't, no matter how prettily drawn.
<snip>
Same. As a GM I use artistic maps as inspiration. But at the game table, I have to be able to draw the battlefield or have a physical map that I can use minis with. Sitting there contemplating how the heck I am going to translate an unfriendly map so the players can dance around the battlefield is no fun.
I gotta say, I really appreciate everybody's opinions and feedback. Now I feel I lucked out finding a cartographer who actually started out drawing battle mats. Last night at 1:00 AM I decided, based on this thread, to see what types of battle mats we could do and sent a file off to a couple of printers. I'm going to pick up the prototype right now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's see...
- Give every unique NPC a name. I hate having to come up with names on short notice.
- Give every unique NPC an alignment. This is the quickest shortcut to me playing the NPC with limited prep time.
- Do not mention unique magic items without documenting their stats. I've experienced this a few times recently.
- MORE stat blocks for NPCs. Don't make me generate stat blocks, that's what I pay you for. In Pathfinder, you can even be lazy and point to one of a large number of OGL NPCs published on the web. Do it.
- There is usually no need for a thousand years of backstory at the front of the module, but please include necessary background for each encounter. It's nice to know who was queen in 357 B.T., but I really need to know more about that pickpocket in front of me.
- Have someone playtest your stuff -- more than one group. My groups routinely find simple tricks to bypass what the writer clearly thought was the only way through an obstacle.
- Expect the unexpected. OK, this is impossible -- but at least try. Give me a headstart on ideas of how to roll when my brilliant players completely wander off script.
You may also find this page to be a very good resource for adventure development.