Why is the adventure format stuck in the past?

[Steve Geddes]

Dale McCoy Jr wrote:

I tried the plotless adventure once with Encounters and Maps: Cave of Kobolds. Emphasis on the word "once." I had a whole line planned (2 more of them are all but done and have never been released).

The review entitled "Avoid" with the line describing it as "some thing I could knock up my self in Herolab given a few minutes," and that it took "five minutes to write" killed that idea for me. Sales were beyond terrible, and it shattered any confidence I had in myself for even trying it. It was years before I tried a proper adventure.

It taught me that people pay for plot more than anything else.

Glad you weren't lost to the industry. :)

Hopefully it's far enough in the past that it's now seen as a valuable datapoint. It's definitely true for me - mechanics is largely irrelevant (since I often translate modules to other systems anyhow). The two ingredients that I look for are plot and setting (those being the two things I'm worst at).

[thejeff]

Four Dollar Dungeons wrote:

I think it's a matter of degree.

Although I think it is perfectly possible to produce good plot-less adventures (all of the MERP and Rolemaster stuff tends to be along those lines, for example), my preference is to have a plot going on which draws the players into it without it being so fine grained that it assumes room by room what the PCs are going to be doing.

In fact this naturally falls out of the way that I design adventures, which is first of all to construct a situation and plot which has no reference to the PCs at all, and then to add in the plot hooks and elements which draw the PCs into the story.

That spider example I gave earlier is a case in point. There is "plot" there, even in such a small description, because there are creatures living there and interacting with the world around them, and you can imagine a broader environment like a dungeon or a temple or something where things are going on and progressing in a PC-less plot. Then you hook the PCs in with some motivation which will eventually take them into that particular room to explore the altar, collect spider eggs, or what have you, and presumably put them in conflict with the plot's protagonists. If the spider's room has two doors into it, however, you don't have to assume which one the PCs will use. You don't have to assume room by room where they'll go, what they'll kill, what they'll befriend, how long they'll take over it, and so on. The plot holds the setting together and integrates it with the PCs without being any more prescriptive than that.

Like I said before, though, that's just one approach to Pathfinder and it may not be the most popular, but it's the one that I prefer as a GM and therefore the one that I prefer to write.

To that extent and on that scale, it works well. Though I don't have any problem with module writers making assumptions about how the PCs will approach the site and write text that way, as long as it's relatively easy to adjust. In fact, I'd like to see suggestions for what happens with alternate approaches more often and especially how the inhabitants react to various approaches - what happens when an alarm is raised, what happens if the PCs retreat and return later, etc.

[Dale McCoy Jr]

Steve Geddes wrote:

Glad you weren't lost to the industry. :)

Hopefully it's far enough in the past that it's now seen as a valuable datapoint.

Pretty much. Looking back on it, I should have just learned from it and moved on. But now I learned both how to not let a review that bad get to me and that plot is the important part of the adventure. So 2 lessons in one.

And thank you.

[Ross Byers]

I think the lesson of 'don't prep plots' isn't actually 'don't prep plots', it's 'don't prep fragile plots'.

Don't make plots that rely on the PCs making extremely specific decisions or succeeding on a single skill check. (Three clue rule.)

Don't make narrow assumptions about PC motivations to move from one part of the adventure to the next.

Don't plan 'cut scenes'.

Basically, Occam's Razor - make the minimal number of assumptions about what the PCs will do. But you do need a plot - otherwise your adventure sight has an assumed motivation of 'I dunno, we went to kill some kobolds/goblins/whatever.'

[Atarlost]

Chemlak wrote:

Read aloud plus differentiated mechanical info wrote:

There is a fourth spider hiding near the ceiling (DC 25 perception check). The disable device DC for the lock on the chest is 22.

I think this is backwards. The close quote terminating the read aloud text isn't impossible to miss. If you write this bit as

mechanical text following RAT wrote:

Perception Check (DC 25) There is a fourth spider hiding near the ceiling.

it's harder to reveal the fourth spider sans perception check by mistake.

The order isn't as important for other stuff, but information checks like knowledge, perception, appraise, and spellcraft should announce the check first, then give the DC, then the information so that if the GM misses the division between RAT and GM text he only lets slip that the players can make some sort of check for more information, which is probably something the GM should tell most players anyways.

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

I think there's a difference between prepping a plot and a situation. In a game the plot is really only identified after the fact. The situation is what is prepared before the fact.

Motivation for villains, likely reactions to defenses being tested and the various events that are likely to happen if PCs aren't introduced to the environment are absolutely valid to prepping a situation. The plot is what happened once the PCs got there and wrecked everything... Er I mean, adventured!

Plots have protagonists, situations unfold.

[Four Dollar Dungeons]

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

I think there's a difference between prepping a plot and a situation. In a game the plot is really only identified after the fact. The situation is what is prepared before the fact.

Motivation for villains, likely reactions to defenses being tested and the various events that are likely to happen if PCs aren't introduced to the environment are absolutely valid to prepping a situation. The plot is what happened once the PCs got there and wrecked everything... Er I mean, adventured!

Plots have protagonists, situations unfold.

+1 to all this, and to Ross and thejeff.

I've been wondering for a while though whether to include a type of read-aloud text - something that encompasses the invariant parts of a location as a shorthand for GMs. It would not be written from the "You" point of view, however - that sort of thing rubs me up the wrong way as a GM because it feels like the writer is addressing my players and that's not his job. It would also only cover some parts of the encounter, so the GM would then have to look at the text beyond this in order to decided what else needs to be described.

Richard

[Glord Funkelhand]

Here's a small story why I want the change in the format:

I played a PFS scenario (as a player), and in the penultimate encounter the following thing happened: Our invisible scout enters a room. GM reads description. Just a room. Some empty cages. Scout walks on to the next room. GM turns page. Realizes that there should have been a monster. Monster attacks invisible scout. And we're talking about a medium sized creature, that was not hidden by any game mechanical terms, but just by the the way the adventure was presented to the GM.
Just bought the adventure in our local game store and realized that this encounter shouldn't even have taken place (we were over time already, and that encounter was only to be played if 1h or more was left). But since the optional encounter sidebar is pretty easy to miss, since it's justa sidebar, instead of an integral part of the room/ encounter description, that's a problem.

Hm. encounter description.
Maybe that's an option.
Split between room and encounter descriptions. Room description could be just a matter of factly information for the GM. Encounter description might contain read aloud text (including monsters) and monster tactics.

Just a few points here:
Stuff monsters do first, should be mentioned first.
So the encounter block should start with stuff that happens before the encounter. Right now this info is buried in the monster description. Sometimes not even in the description of the monster affected (say if a cleric buffs another monster before combat, if certain requirements are met).

[amethal]

Glord Funkelhand wrote:

Here's a small story why I want the change in the format:

That reminds me of the Minas Tirith episode of DM of the Rings.

DM of the Rings

[Mythic Evil Lincoln]

Just want to say, that Alexandrian article that was linked upthread is terrific.

I've been making my notes for next week's game in that format, and it is just a joy to work with!

[Rusted Iron Games]

There is a lot of great information and ideas in this thread. Based on the discussion here and what Dale posted on the Jon Brazer site, I have come up with a format that incorporates a lot of the suggestions.

I am currently writing the first mini-adventure for R.I.G. and I think I will use this format and see how it goes. Let me know what you think of this format.

edit: in the actual product the read aloud text would be placed in a box to provide a greater constrast. Here it is just italics because the forums only allow so much formatting.

{place in sidebar near start of encounter}
Scaling Encounter ## EncounterName
## to ## players: skip this encounter.
## to ## players: run as written.
## to ## players: add/remove {hidden/invisible} ## creatures. CR ## XP ##
{## to ## / ##+} players: replace haunt/hazard/trap with haunt/hazard/trap. CR ## XP ##

A.## EncounterName (CR ##)
XP ##

{creature/haunt/hazard/trap/treasure icons}
## {creatures} plus ## hidden/invisible {creatures} (Perception DC XX, hiding in xxx)
{name} haunt/hazard/trap on location (Perception DC XX to notice)
{location name} has {lighting level} or {lighting level} at night

Creatures: {omit if no creatures}
Read Aloud Description (includes obvious creatures and a quick description of the room/area)
Additional GM Information including difficult terrain and additional lighting info
{creature stat blocks}

Location:
Read Aloud Description (includes full room description including any visible signs of a haunt, hazard, trap, or treasure. This should not contain any reference to creatures.)
Additional GM information

Haunt: {omit if no haunt}
GM information including location of haunt/trigger
{haunt stat block}

Hazard: {omit if no hazard}
GM Information including location
{hazard stat block}

Trap: {omit if no trap}
GM Information including location
{trap stat block}

Treasure: {omit if no treasure}
GM Information including all items found in room.

Development:
GM Information detailing the results of any actions that characters can take that have an impact on the plot or environment.

[Rusted Iron Games]

Here is an example encounter that I wrote to test out the format.

{place in sidebar near start of encounter}
Scaling Encounter A.4 Web Filled Barn
1 to 3 players: replace the Acid Arrow Trap with the Burning Hands Trap; remove the hidden spider CR 5 XP 1,600
4 to 5 players: run as written.
6+ players: add 1 additional spider plus 1 additional hidden spider. CR 7 XP 3,200

A.4 Web Filled Barn (CR 6)
XP 2,400

{creature/trap/treasure icons}
3 spiders plus 1 hidden spider (Perception DC 21, hiding in the webs)
1 hidden door (Perception DC 15, obscured by the webs)
Acid Arrow Trap on hidden door (Perception DC 27 to notice)
The barn has dim light or is dark at night

Creatures:
There are 3 large spiders in this rustic barn which is filled with the creature’s webs. The area under the hayloft, towards the rear of the barn is almost completely obscured by webs. The area is only lit by a large hole in the roof.
The hidden spider will try to sneak to an advantageous position on round 1 in order to attack the closest character in round 2.

Giant Spider (4) CR 1
XP 400 each
hp 16 each (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Bestiary)

Location:
This abandoned barn is constructed of rustic timbers. Large double doors in the south wall lead outside. The barn is filled with spider webs which are especially thick at the north end of the building under the hayloft. A rickety wooden ladder leads up to the loft. Empty animal stalls line both the east and west walls. Sunlight shines in from a hole in the roof providing dim light.
The area under the hayloft is difficult terrain due to the thick webs. There is a door in the north wall which is obscured by the thick webs (Perception DC 15 to notice). The door is trapped - see below.

Trap:
There is a trap on the north door. When scaling the encounter for 1-3 players use the Burning Hands Trap.

Acid Arrow Trap CR3
Type magic; Perception DC 27; Disable Device DC 27
EFFECTS
Trigger proximity (alarm); Reset none
Effect spell effect (acid arrow, Atk +2 ranged touch, 2d4 acid damage for 4 rounds)

Burning Hands Trap CR1
Type magic; Perception DC 26; Disable Device DC 26
EFFECTS
Trigger proximity (alarm); Reset none
Effect spell effect (burning hands, 2d4 fire damage, DC 11 Reflex save for half damage); multiple targets (all targets in a 15-ft. cone)

Treasure:
There is a corpse, one of the spiders’ previous victims, in the second stall on the east. On the body are the following items: masterwork short sword, chain shirt, a sunrod and 42 gold pieces.

Development:
Killing the spiders will end the nocturnal disappearance of local sheep. If the characters have gained the appropriate quest from the local farmers, they may claim the rewards when they return to town.

[Glord Funkelhand]

amethal wrote:

Glord Funkelhand wrote:

Here's a small story why I want the change in the format:

That reminds me of the Minas Tirith episode of DM of the Rings.

DM of the Rings

Yeah, I think it's pretty common.

It almost has to happen, using the current format.

@Rusted Iron Games:
Only glanced over it.
I'll give you my 2cent once I had some sleep :)

[James Jacobs]

Interesting suggestions... but I'm not so sure that they're fun to read is my personal problem with a lot of these formats.

One really good way to test new adventure formats is to pick a few existing encounters written in the current format and translate them into the proposed new format. This lets you see if the new format is more efficient with space, for one thing, but also lets you examine the original text to see if perhaps there is unnecessary or redundant information.

So... using the Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition, it'd be interesting to see encounter area C19 from page 48 translated into a new format, but also to see encounter area X12 from page 353 written up as well, giving us a look at a complex low CR encounter and a complex high CR one.

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

The issue with the R.I.G format above is you're talking about actors before you've even set the stage. You write about monsters and traps before giving them a place to stand. Plus so much information gets repeated that you've doubled the word count of an encounter that could read:

A4 - Web Filled Barn CR 6
This abandoned barn is constructed of rustic timbers. Large double doors in the south wall lead outside. The barn is filled with spider webs which are especially thick at the north end of the building under the hayloft. A rickety wooden ladder leads up to the loft. Empty animal stalls line both the east and west walls. Sunlight shines in from a hole in the roof providing dim light.

The south door is trapped. Four spiders hide in the rafters of this room, see monsters below. The stall marked v contains a web shrouded corpse and a treasure

Monsters: The Spiders take 10 on Stealth checks, and are hiding in the rafters it is a DC 36 Perception check to avoid surprise.
Giant Spiders (4) - CR 1 Init. +3; hp 14; Perception +4 (tremorsense 60 ft.), Stealth +16. B1 pg XX
Trap: Acid Arrow CR 3 Type: Magic; Trigger: Proximity (South Barn Door); Perception DC 27, Disable Device DC 27. Pathfinder CRB pg. XXX.
Treasure: There is a corpse, one of the spiders’ previous victims, in the second stall on the east. On the body are the following items: masterwork short sword, chain shirt, a sunrod and 42 gold pieces.
Development: Killing the spiders will end the nocturnal disappearance of local sheep. If the characters have gained the appropriate quest from the local farmers, they may claim the rewards when they return to town.

If you want a scaling the encounter section, I'd probably have a sidebar that collects that for the whole adventure and the GM can make those notes on their own. Cluttering the encounters with that info will only lead to more mistakes while running the adventure.

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

The RIG version is 416 words, for the encounter alone, without the sidebar. In addition, it takes double the amount of lines, basically filling a full A4 page (this is without the sidebar).

While the simple version I posted below is 242 words, and fills half a page.

The R.I.G format halves the amount of encounters and content you can fit in a book. This is for a simple static encounter. A more complex encounter, say different monsters occupying the room if there is an alarm triggered, or an investigation encounter with NPCs to talk to and clues to gather as well as a possible combat and trap, could only take up more space.

[Glord Funkelhand]

I was thinking of taking existing encounters with a problematic description and re-writing them, but I am not sure if this is ok for copyright reasons.

[Schadenfreude]

This is how I'd do it:

C19 Throne Room (CR 6)
If alarm has been raised: All doors locked (Disable Device DC 20)
Normal light (4 torches)*
Warchief Ripnugget (goblin fighter); Stickfoot (giant gecko). If alarm has been raised: 3 goblin commandos hidden on top of pillars near throne (Perception DC 23); 1 goblin warchanter hidden behind throne (Perception DC 25). Without alarm: As above, unhidden.

"This large throne room is decorated with hanging furs blah blah blah"

As usual from there, except you could possibly cut down the first paragraph of "Creatures" a little, since it's mostly dealt with above - you'd keep the colour text about the reenactment though obviously.

You could flag each line before the read aloud box with an icon (lock, light, creature respectively - you might also have temperature, trap, whatever else you need) if you wanted.

Overall, I think this is quite space efficient and preserves both the gaming quick reference requirements with the reading flow (so it serves both ends).

* I made this up. I can't actually find a description of the lighting conditions in Thistletop (which possibly indicates the problem). But goblins love flame, so...

[Schadenfreude]

Even simpler for the grown up version:

X12 The Leng Device (CR 17)
Dim light (eldritch light from the Leng Device)
12 advanced denizens of Leng
Development:Killing the denizens disturbs the Device, which summons the Thing from Beyond Time (unique hound of Tindalos) 2d6 rounds later

Blah blah blah

The development line is potentially optional here. It's just a convenient quick reference.

I'd probably put the Device under its own subhead in the description (which it isn't at the moment), but that's just me.

[I'm Hiding In Your Closet]

"Why is the adventure format stuck in the past?"

Answer?

[DeathQuaker]

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

"Why is the adventure format stuck in the past?"

Answer?

"You may ask, but how did this tradition get started. Well, I'll tell you...

"... I don't know.

"But it's a tradition!"

The RPG industry in a nutshell.

[Devilkiller]

@I'm Hiding In Your Closet - Suddenly I want to build a custom monster called the Laser Wolf.

[Mathius]

This thread is great. JJ thanks for input from one who actually does this sort of thing.

As a consumer I have never enjoyed reading the actually encounters and site descriptions. The adventure background and summary are always great. I would actually like to see the summary go into a bit more detail.

In the site description I only care about their usability at the table anyway. I would love more details on how the rooms interact with each other.

[I'm Hiding In Your Closet]

Devilkiller wrote:

@I'm Hiding In Your Closet - Suddenly I want to build a custom monster called the Laser Wolf.

Um. I don't get it.

[Joana]

Lazar Wolf

[I'm Hiding In Your Closet]

Right. I've only actually seen the show once.

[DeathQuaker]

On a more possibly useful note, I like Schadenfreude's and Dudemeister's suggestions. Some stuff like lighting could be indicated by icons, as someone suggested upthread, to save space.

I like stuff in Rusted Iron Games' example, but it repeats some stuff and indeed does take space. One thing is is I would forget the encounter scaling notes, preserving that only for key fights. I think most games have a sidebar for suggestions for scaling encounters, and it's best to let GMs decide what they want to do for scaling on their own--as sometimes they need to adjust for party build and/or player styles as well.

My biggest worry at this point is we won't see needed changes to help GMs--especially new GMs--where game developers might prioritize nostalgia and an intentionally restricted perception of what is "fun" over readability, comprehensibility, and ease-of-use, and friendliness to new GMs (who may not know, be used to, have "fun" with, or care about "what it used to be like"). The game can't exist without GMs, so everything to cultivate them and make their lives easier should be top priority --- not making something look like it did in 1980 because reasons.

[Devilkiller]

RIG's format has a lot of info, but it is so lengthy that I'd fear DM's might still miss something or not feel like they could take time to review it all before letting the PCs begin to interact with the room. I kind of like Dudemeister's summary of stuff like Trap, Monster, Treasure since it reminds me of the notes I often take when I'm preparing to run a published adventure. Even some very brief notes like Schadenfreude's could help a bit.

Tradition and nostalgia are probably important factors to consider when marketing this particular line of products, but I don't think that adding summarized notes on areas would be a turn off for old school gamers or casual readers though, especially if that information was compartmentalized. "Everybody" knows that you read "the box" to the players. Maybe there could be another blocked off section of some sort for basic info on running the room.

If that would increase word and page counts too much maybe having some "Cliff Notes" available online could be a potential compromise. As mentioned upthread, I'd think that downloadable hand outs and illustrations might be nice too. Would they actually help sell more product? I have no idea...

[Rusty Ironpants]

Since several people seem to have missed it - my original post stated that the encounter scaling information would be placed in a sidebar...

[Rusty Ironpants]

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

The issue with the R.I.G format above is you're talking about actors before you've even set the stage. You write about monsters and traps before giving them a place to stand. Plus so much information gets repeated that you've doubled the word count of an encounter that could read:

A4 - Web Filled Barn CR 6
This abandoned barn is constructed of rustic timbers. Large double doors in the south wall lead outside. The barn is filled with spider webs which are especially thick at the north end of the building under the hayloft. A rickety wooden ladder leads up to the loft. Empty animal stalls line both the east and west walls. Sunlight shines in from a hole in the roof providing dim light.

The south door is trapped. Four spiders hide in the rafters of this room, see monsters below. The stall marked v contains a web shrouded corpse and a treasure

Monsters: The Spiders take 10 on Stealth checks, and are hiding in the rafters it is a DC 36 Perception check to avoid surprise.
Giant Spiders (4) - CR 1 Init. +3; hp 14; Perception +4 (tremorsense 60 ft.), Stealth +16. B1 pg XX
Trap: Acid Arrow CR 3 Type: Magic; Trigger: Proximity (South Barn Door); Perception DC 27, Disable Device DC 27. Pathfinder CRB pg. XXX.
Treasure: There is a corpse, one of the spiders’ previous victims, in the second stall on the east. On the body are the following items: masterwork short sword, chain shirt, a sunrod and 42 gold pieces.
Development: Killing the spiders will end the nocturnal disappearance of local sheep. If the characters have gained the appropriate quest from the local farmers, they may claim the rewards when they return to town.

If you want a scaling the encounter section, I'd probably have a sidebar that collects that for the whole adventure and the GM can make those notes on their own. Cluttering the encounters with that info will only lead to more mistakes while running the adventure.

Honestly, you will never see this in a published adventure. It is too abbrievated. At a minimum, the monster and traps would need to be in stat block format like I included in the R.I.G. example.

Minizing word count is not everything, In my opinion understandability is paramount. I put the monsters first (including a very brief room description) because the largest issue I saw people identifying was reading a paragraph of room description and then having to tack on "oh yeah, there is also a giant demon in the middle of the room" when honestly that is the first thing the players should notice. While the demon is there characters are unlikely to notice the wall paper pattern, the fancy chandiler or even the exact number of additional doors.

So doing it that way does cause some repeat of information. Especially from the two descriptions 1. Monster plus brief room description 2. Full room description with no monster. If someone has a suggestion to address that I would be very interested.

[Steve Geddes]

I wonder what the proportion of gaming-products-used-for-games vs gaming-products-which-are-just-read-for-fun is.

I suspect I'm in the minority, but almost every adventure I buy is for reading/inspiration purposes. I would guesstimate that I run 10% of the adventures I buy (maybe it will eventually reach 20%, but I doubt it's higher than that).

As such, readability rates more highly in my list of priorities than playability. Lots of tables or bullet point lists don't really have much value to me.

[MrVergee]

Steve Geddes wrote:

I suspect I'm in the minority, but almost every adventure I buy is for reading/inspiration purposes. I would guesstimate that I run 10% of the adventures I buy (maybe it will eventually reach 20%, but I doubt it's higher than that).

As such, readability rates more highly in my list of priorities than playability. Lots of tables or bullet point lists don't really have much value to me.

Not sure if it is a minority, I'm in that same group and I like reading adventures as well.

I'm not a big fan of extensive room description, certainly not when they add no real information to the room or map (e.g. I don't need to read that the room three doors, one in the west wall, one in the east and one leading north - I can see that on the map; I don't need to know how many sacks of grain and barrels of beer there are in a food pantry, unless it matters).

[DeathQuaker]

If I want to read a story, I buy a novel.

If I want to run a story, I buy a module, but I want the designer to trust me to bring that story to life and stick to the details I need to know.

I like to read modules for ideas and inspiration, certainly, and yes, like everyone I suspect I own more than I've run. Concisely listed stats and mechanics makes it easier for me to get the information I need to adapt for my uses. Brief narrative text is fine and good writing is always appreciated regardless of format. However, if the text is badly organized, where key points of what is there and what it might do and how to manage it are buried for the sake of trying to fit a square peg (a game accessory) into a round hole (prose fiction), this makes it LESS readable to me for my purposes, harder for me to make use of it, and thus less likely to purchase it. Currently, I purchase very few modules or adventures.

Obviously, YMMV.

[Steel_Wind]

Steve Geddes wrote:

I wonder what the proportion of gaming-products-used-for-games vs gaming-products-which-are-just-read-for-fun is.

I suspect I'm in the minority, but almost every adventure I buy is for reading/inspiration purposes. I would guesstimate that I run 10% of the adventures I buy (maybe it will eventually reach 20%, but I doubt it's higher than that).

As such, readability rates more highly in my list of priorities than playability. Lots of tables or bullet point lists don't really have much value to me.

Nobody knows what those numbers currently are. Paizo had an idea about them from 15 years ago when they published Dungeon. One of the things which made the AP design so attractive to Paizo that they took a risk on it was how popular the AP format was when it was started in Dungeon, and how many people seemed to be talking about it and actually playing the adventures in Dungeon that were part of an AP. While that change was difficult to quantify, Paizo knew they were on to something with the AP format.

#100 issues later of Pathfinder Adventure Path, I think we can agree on that point, at least.

But yes Steve, the products main "value-in-use" lies still in the reading and not in the using during actual play when it comes to Adv Paths at least. It might not be a DELIBERATE choice on the part of the purchaser, but whether deliberate or not, I'm pretty sure it's the practical result.

I would make an exception to the "principal use" observation. My guess (and that is all that it is -- a guess) is that when it comes to Pathfinder Society Scenarios? My bet is that the main "value in use" for those digital products really does lie mainly in the running and not in the reading. And given how those scenarios are run in stores, in practice, the bullet point stuff suggested in this thread probably would be better appreciated and lead to a better gaming experience.

Problem is, PFS scenarios are also the main training ground for module and AP writers, so trying to make a change in one product area and pretending that has no consequences in other areas is incorrect as well.

All of which lead to the following observation as to why adventures are the way they are: there are good reasons.

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

MrVergee wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

I suspect I'm in the minority, but almost every adventure I buy is for reading/inspiration purposes. I would guesstimate that I run 10% of the adventures I buy (maybe it will eventually reach 20%, but I doubt it's higher than that).

As such, readability rates more highly in my list of priorities than playability. Lots of tables or bullet point lists don't really have much value to me.

Not sure if it is a minority, I'm in that same group and I like reading adventures as well.

I'm not a big fan of extensive room description, certainly not when they add no real information to the room or map (e.g. I don't need to read that the room three doors, one in the west wall, one in the east and one leading north - I can see that on the map; I don't need to know how many sacks of grain and barrels of beer there are in a food pantry, unless it matters).

I prefer short room descriptions, but the minimum information should include:

Exits, Points of Interest. A map isn't always completely clear are those squares crates or desks? Are those exits doors, what about windows?

As a player the thing I hate most is when there is a room description but the description doesn't give me clear actionable points.

[James Jacobs]

The fact that we're 100 volumes into the Adventure Path, and the fact that Dungeon's readership was on the rise, combined with the fact that there's no way any one group can play ALL of those adventures, and combined with a lot of my own research and observations over the years makes me think that the group who reads adventures for fun and/or inspiration and/or as a surrogate to replace the fact that they don't have an active game at the moment is, perhaps, a majority, not a minority, of those who actually run/play the adventures.

[Callum]

amethal wrote:

That reminds me of the Minas Tirith episode of DM of the Rings.

DM of the Rings

This is great! I've been reading this fascinating thread with interest, and now you've linked to the DM of the Rings epidode that I suggested. Thanks - it was nice to see it again!

[brock, no the other one...]

James Jacobs wrote:

The fact that we're 100 volumes into the Adventure Path, and the fact that Dungeon's readership was on the rise, combined with the fact that there's no way any one group can play ALL of those adventures, and combined with a lot of my own research and observations over the years makes me think that the group who reads adventures for fun and/or inspiration and/or as a surrogate to replace the fact that they don't have an active game at the moment is, perhaps, a majority, not a minority, of those who actually run/play the adventures.

Single, useless, point of data. I subscribe to the AP's, and I've tracked down print copies of all of the ones that I missed. I've played three, and run one. While I've read a lot of the ancillary content in the various volumes, I've read none of the adventure content outside of those four that have been used. I only read adventures if I plan to run them, or if they have been run for me, as I don't want spoilers. So perhaps there is another category in there, or perhaps it's just me.

I'm with DeathQuaker though. If I am reading an adventure, I'm doing it with my game master head on. I want to quickly understand the mechanics of a scene or plot point so that I can fit it all together in my brain.

[Kalindlara]

I definitely read adventures for pleasure. Some might actually work a little better that way, depending on your group.

I'd like to run most/all of the APs someday, but it's slow going...

[Dryder]

I love the APs and the modules Paizo publishes. I know, that a lot of buyers only get them for the pleasure of reading a great story.

But in the end, it's still an adventure-module (however big), and it's main use should be for the GM using it at the table.
Therefore, the information in it should be easily processible.

Actually, I don't like the idea, that my life as a GM is made harder, because there are people who rather use the product in an unintended way (meaning, they only like to read it), and being served first.

It's an adventure-module for a roleplaying game. The guys who should get the most out of it are the GMs, not the guys who buy it for the joy of reading. I am not even sure, if the joy of reading would be diminished by a new format...

The Dungeon-Delve format was one of the worst inventions in adventure-module presentation!
But it would be cool, if Paizo would at least consider a more user-friendly format, IF (a big IF) enough people would care about a new one.

Prepping APs is a pain in the XXX - every help would be welcome.
I am presently preparing Shattered Star part5. And there are a lot of rooms in there. Knowing them all is really tough. Having a fast way of knowing what's inside that room (especially, when the creature entry is on the next page), would be a TREMENDOUS help!
Having the opponent mentioned in the read-aloud text would be far easier for the DM, and adjusting the description of that encounter-area if the players get there a second time is also easier than the way that inforamtion is presented now (among others).

[Steve Geddes]

When I run a module, I generally create a 4x40 table covering every room listing the room's "title" (assigned by me often - just something that will remind me), monsters, secrets, environmental effects or "other" things.

So one line might be Temple - ogre - secret compartment in altar - fumes (DC12 Con). I can generally get that all on one A4 page and it's a decent enough reminder that, providing I've read the module a couple of times, I can run a lot of the rooms without looking in the book and I know which rooms I need to be careful about (I generally highlight those to remind me of complicated room descriptions, clues or something similar).

Perhaps some sort of "cheat sheet" like that would be a good appendix to include with a module (particularly for those sold via PDF).

[Olwen]

I bought all the APs and I ran about a quarter of them. But I've read almost all of the ~100 volumes published by Paizo. The pleasure I get in reading the AP volumes is a major reason why I am still a subscriber and happily buy them each month. So I fall straight into the category James describes. More importantly, if they weren't enjoyable to read and get into, I probably wouldn't run them either! So making them easy to read is certainly important to me.

I tried reading some more structured modules from other publishers and, more often than not, I can't get beyond a few pages because the very structured and supposedly helpful format makes them boring to read, even with the goal to run them. And if the GM is bored when reading the module, I can't imagine a good outcome at the table later on…

[Cpt_kirstov]

I have every AP volume, I've run 4.5, and read at least 50 of them. I have every module, I've read about 20, and have run 0. So Like
Olwen I'm squarely in the group James describes.

[DeathQuaker]

Entertainment value and ease-of-use should not be mutually exclusive.

[Steve Geddes]

DeathQuaker wrote:

Entertainment value and ease-of-use should not be mutually exclusive.

Yeah, I agree. Some of the methods people have tried to make modules easier to run ruin the readability-for-fun and some of the modules which are enjoyable to read are a nightmare to find important stuff during the game.

I didn't mean to suggest that publishers need to make a choice between one group or the other. It seems to me that if a method could be found to improve the experience for both there can only be winners. :)

[Glord Funkelhand]

James Jacobs wrote:

The fact that we're 100 volumes into the Adventure Path, and the fact that Dungeon's readership was on the rise, combined with the fact that there's no way any one group can play ALL of those adventures, and combined with a lot of my own research and observations over the years makes me think that the group who reads adventures for fun and/or inspiration and/or as a surrogate to replace the fact that they don't have an active game at the moment is, perhaps, a majority, not a minority, of those who actually run/play the adventures.

I know I bought and read a lot of adventures even while not GMing.

That's another reason I'd prefer the more dramatic room descriptions with monsters :)

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

I really don't want monster descriptions hard baked into the room. As a GM, I rarely have the monsters just waiting around in the rooms they are in, and will often swap out monsters when GMing.

I'm running Mummy's Mask at the moment in 1920's Egypt, and the amount of umming and ahhing I do as I hot-swap simple proper nouns (Osirion for Egypt) shows me that hard baking in monsters that might not actually be in the rooms they are described in because an alarm might have pulled them out of the room.

[DanyRay]

From my experience, what would realy help me is a realy short and compact feature list before room description and read aloud.

The fact is that I have an horible memory and often tend to forgot one or two things that the players should have seen or know. To solve that I put lots of post-it with bullet list of feature over rooms description in AP books. A simple box with important features should not take to much space and wont hinder those who read just for fun (wich I'm part of since I can't run 10% of what I own).
Something like this, in a box above text or in margin:

- Main door locked(DC XX) - Normal lighting - Trap on X (DC XX)
- 4 Dretch - 1 Invisible summoner - Strong Evocation aura on Deskari statue

Also, I think it should list the features for the more probable approach and the GM ajust from that. He know that the PC have atracted the monster in the previous room whit all the noise the've done. Speaking of, the bullet point reference of the room inabitant is easier to spot when checking surrounding room for atracted monster.

With a nice formating and keeping it short, It should not cut to much adventure content and someone who read just for fun may skip it easyly as the complete information would be in the regular description/read aloud.

Finaly, it will not be true for the majority, but maybe for some who run games in other languages with books in English. I understand very well the text but can't just use the read aloud as is so I pick items from there and from the description of the room and make my own descripton to the players. Nothing wrong here, but a feature list would greatly ease my description of the room to the player as I wont forget a crucial element.

I follow this tread since the begening an find it realy interesting. I'm on the camp that beleive there is a way to make it easier on GM life without ruining the fun factor of reading these great adventure or AP. I have faith in the great people at Paizo to make it even beter

[GM Rednal]

*Taps chin*

So, taking into account what I've heard... keeping things compact is important, and I don't think anyone's likely to argue too much on that one. XD On the other end, I think people have a point about reading the room descriptions and THEN realizing there's a foe in there.

Maybe adding in some kind of encounter icons would be appropriate? Certain shapes for traps/haunts, creatures, skill challenges, whatever's actually in that area, as an easy-to-find reminder for the GM?

[DeathQuaker]

Steve Geddes wrote:

DeathQuaker wrote:

Entertainment value and ease-of-use should not be mutually exclusive.

Yeah, I agree. Some of the methods people have tried to make modules easier to run ruin the readability-for-fun and some of the modules which are enjoyable to read are a nightmare to find important stuff during the game.

I didn't mean to suggest that publishers need to make a choice between one group or the other. It seems to me that if a method could be found to improve the experience for both there can only be winners. :)

I don't think that's what you were arguing but I realized we (the participants in this thread in general, myself included) were starting to take on the tone of "Crunchy!" "Creamy!" "Crunchy!" "Creamy!" and not really getting anywhere. :)

So, I've been arguing before that we need to prioritize ease-of-use for GMs--since ostensibly the whole POINT of adventures is to make GMs' lives easier--but we're uselessly splitting ourselves up into "camps" and not getting what I think ALL OF US want: delicious peanut butter. I mean, a well-written, well-organized adventure.

I've said before that I don't prioritize "entertainment value" personally--but I've realized dismissing that elides the point that frankly, a well-written, well-organized adventure SHOULD be, in fact, entertaining too. And that nothing is wrong with wanting an adventure to BE entertaining.

So let's not use entertainment value--or any other factor--as a conversational deflection from discussing what we all want here: better adventures.

I think we all can agree that Paizo and other publishers do put out great adventures, but there are sticking points folks have with many, and maybe lots of people buy them as is, but if there's a way to make them better so more people buy things, that can only be a good thing.

When it comes down to it, when I've struggled with bad adventure organization, the things that made me struggle as a GM to use ALSO made it hard to simply read through the adventure just to get a sense of or enjoy the plot. I'll bring up Skull and Shackles again just because I'm running it right now (in a PBP here): the first book's organization (or seeming lack thereof) is not only a nightmare for me as a GM to work with, it's impossible to read through and get a consistent sense of story, character, or action. For example, the whole beginning of the story gets bisected partway through by a lengthy, several-page-long description of the ship before going back to the narrative---that does NOT lend itself to "entertainment"; rather, an average reader is likely left distracted and confused. I do NOT have fun reading this AP book. It is NOT fun at all. And I have probably done as much or more prep for this campaign as I have for the campaigns I've run from scratch/on the fly, in part because the book is so poorly organized. I am having fun running the game, but much of that is thanks to my players and the ability to finally bring the NPCs to life--with little and confusing help from the book. I have sat down and made lots of cheat sheets and other things to help me run the game, but that's time I shouldn't have had to spend, given the ostensible point of pre-written adventures is to save a GM time -- nor should I need a cheat sheet if I am reading through just to enjoy it, but for S&S you might need one just to remember who all the NPCs are.

The reason the "The Wormwood Mutiny" is unfun is because the developers tried to cram effectively a sandbox into a dungeon-design format, and it doesn't work. This goes back to an earlier point I've made: if the format makes it harder for a GM to use--or a reader to read--THEN IT HAS FAILED. Period.

So--everybody: when a module IS fun and easy to follow when reading, what does it do?

When it is not, what happened?

We've said some things about making sure encounter descriptions clearly delineate mechanical actions a GM may need to be aware of. What else is helpful? What has worked in existing adventures? What hasn't? People talk about Delve not working--but for those of us who haven't used it, what specifically about it failed?