|
I am just curious, what your favorite type of adventure is, when it comes to evemt driven adventures and keyed adventures?!
I prefer event-based adventures.
They are a bit harder to prepare and I need again half of the time more, than I need normally to prepare something but they run smoother than others.
It's also easier to wing it "on the fly", means during a session, and I always have a better understanding of the whole plot/sites/events than with keyed adventures.
Of course, sometimes keyed locations come in, but only small ones, which are pretty easy to prepare!
My two (euro-)cents! Your's?!
I am just curious, what your favorite type of adventure is, when it comes to evemt driven adventures and keyed adventures?!
I prefer event-based adventures.
They are a bit harder to prepare and I need again half of the time more, than I need normally to prepare something but they run smoother than others.
It's also easier to wing it "on the fly", means during a session, and I always have a better understanding of the whole plot/sites/events than with keyed adventures.
Of course, sometimes keyed locations come in, but only small ones, which are pretty easy to prepare!My two (euro-)cents! Your's?!
I like event based adventures too. But to be honest a good mix is best...I like mostly event with a couple of small "dungeons" or couple of area adventure sites mixed in. Makes for a dynamic adventure and feels less railroady than a full-on 180 room dungeon crawl.
Well there are certianly occasions were one kind just works better but as a general rule I like Key based adventires better.
That said I like lots of logical if...then style statements in the key based adventure so that it does not feel static. If its an evil temple that the players are doing a B&E on I'd like to know how many guards there are and their patrol schedual generally as well as what happens if the alarm is raised.
What I don't like about event based adventures is that it often feels like the adventure is in a kind of time stop - nothing ever happens until the adventurers arrive on the scene to witness it. I prefer ny world to be more dynamic most of the time. Still sometimes one really needs something to be even based. No point in running A Hot Day in L'Trel on the Summer Equionox unless the players are actually in L'Trel after all.
So almost all adventures are in some sense Event based - they exist in a kind of stasis until the moment the players arrive on the scene. But that said I usually preffer them to actually just start running from that moment until the adventure concludes.
|
I generally mix both. Change is always good in a campaign, so interspersing the two can keep the campaign fresh. If I had to choose one over the other, though, I would go with Site-based (keyed). The reason being is that Site-based adventures allow the DM to have complete knowledge of adventuring environ (because it is a limited environ) while still allowing the PCs freedom of choice as to where to go and what to do (within that limited environ). While you can create a similar compromise with Event-base adventures using a complicated event tree, you end up with a lot of wasted material for the choices the PCs don't take. You don't waste nearly as much material in a Site-base adventure since the PCs tend to explore every option available. If you write 10 hours worth of material but you only use 5 hours worth of it, it can get frustrating.
I'm encouraged by the positive response for event based adventures, as I'm in the process of writing a query for submission to Dungeon even as we speak. They are easily my favorite over the keyed (site based) type. Of course, I'm an old-schooler, and you gotta have a full out dungeon crawl every so often.
I love event-based adventures, because I don't like being tied down to a set of "keyed" encounters. That's why I modify Dungeon adventures so much, so that they're more to my liking.
When I design adventures for my campaigns, I develop a couple of set encounter locations that are detailed out enough for me to use. Then if I want those encounters to take place in a dungeon, I simply write down some very rough notes about what the dungeon is like, give it a population of creatures and how they interact...and then play the whole thing on the fly, so to speak.
I have run weeks of adventure just off a couple of pages of handwritten notes and about a dozen or so stat cards. I make up a lot of stuff as I go.
One thing I do not skimp on is detailed descriptions of the towns, factions, nations and major NPC's of my campaign area. I have several hundred pages of campaign notes that I have written over the years.
This makes running event-based adventures much easier, as I can usually plan ahead for unexpected twists and turns. I usually try to work the pre-written adventures I use from Dungeon (which is about 80% of my campaign's adventures) into the events of my campaign ahead of time.
As far as keyed adventures go, I have no problems with taking the big-bad climactic encounter at the end and re-working all the preceding elements so they move faster. My players have patience for only a little bit of detailed exploring of vast dungeons...they prefer to get in and get out in a single gaming session if possible. I often allow them to do so...
I usually prefer site-based adventures, as it maximizes the time spent adventuring and role-playing. My event-based sessions always seem to bog down, to the point that the players and I are staring at each other wondering "What should I do to make this go faster?" It's almost like a chess match, trying to think 2 or 3 moves in the future. That being said, I'm taking a page from the Heroes of Battle sourcebook, and I've starting making flowcharts. This lets me turn a battlefield (site) into a real, gritty, living/breathing/dying encounter where the PC's actions affect more than just their immediate surroundings. And that's what an event-based adventure should be, right? I have to say, though, that I still think that site-based adventures are easier to run.
I agree with the politically-correct answer of ... they both have merit and are both useful and fun - a good mix is always desirable. But in an either/or situation, it's not even close - I'd choose site-based (keyed) adventures any day of the week. As has already been stated by others on this messageboard, for the DM it's especially nice to have a full understanding and a much larger measure of control over the entire situation when the location/action is all spelled out and can be studied and planned out beforehand. I understand some people feel "railroaded" but I never feel that way. I feel my choices get vindicated or encouraged to continue on my current path when playing keyed adventures versus the confusion and uncertainty (along with plenty of anxiety and frustration) that comes when playing event-based adventures. Plot hooks and character motivation are perhaps the weakest parts of most adventures, IMO, and event-based adventures exacerbate this problem. While fighting to keep in sinc with the timeline and experience the full measure of encounters, treasure, "clues", whatnot, and suppressing the fear that your choices may have serious consequences (ie. missing out on huge chunks of the action/reward); PC motivation can be the first casualty. I understand why some people enjoy the idea that each choice made by their characters results in "real" consequences and that the world moves at its own pace outside of the small sphere of PC perspective - it is because of those reasons that I don't mind a sprinkling of event-based adventures in my campaigns. That being said, I still largely prefer the "safe", easily-managed, direct approach that both DMs and PCs experience in keyed (site-based) adventures.
It really depends on the adventure. Certain times the plot is best served in certain ways, and you have to go with that. I try not to confine myself to one way of doing things. Whatever serves the plot, wins.
I still largely prefer the "safe", easily-managed, direct approach that both DMs and PCs experience in keyed (site-based) adventures.
I'm not sure players can tell the difference unless there's some sort of blatant countdown going on. I do agree though that the NPCs often need better motivations.
While it might be less work, site-based adventures (open door, kill orc, take pie, repeat - watch out! this orc has a reach weapon! kill orc, take pie....) I find it best to mix the two otherwise the game becomes monster-in-a-box. Now mixing the two could be as simple as saying the orc in the next room hears the commotion and eats his pie, but still every little touch helps.
Mmmm, pumpkin pie and cool whip!
GGG
I have problem with them both. The greatest thing about role-playing is player choice. I find that in event baised, both as a player and as a DM, it is hard to feel like the players really change anything - the things that are going to happen happen. Site based has the same problem - the players walk to the place and whatevere happens happens. The great struggle I have as a DM is being flexable and letting the players guide what is going to happen. Then they feel they have a choice and are part of a living world. This is how they really seem to invest the most in the game. But I often find it hard as a player to have any idea what to do next without any guidance from the DM and as a DM to plan for or just deal with where the players are going to go if they really are given a free choice (and not to cry as hours of preparation get passed by).