|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And yet that seems to be exactly what you are trying to do; telling me how I should talk. THAT is rude. If I wanted to insult you I am probably going to use a real insult NOT "roll player".
And if I tell you that I find rollplayer insulting and you continue to use it around me, you ARE choosing to insult me.
I would respect any level of role playing tbh.
It's one thing to respect a lack of role playing it's quite another to insist that they are role playing when they're really not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you can't tell the difference between an insult and a descriptive use of a word like "rollplayer" then it really isn't on me. I'm not the one getting offended by a slight you imagined all in your own head. Since your the one upset it is by definition your problem.
If the majority of the people the word describes object to it then it is an insult.
Savages is just a descriptive word you guys, which means it cannot be considered an insult. I mean it literally is insulting in every conceivable context, but hey it's descriptive.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you can't tell the difference between an insult and a descriptive use of a word like "rollplayer" then it really isn't on me.
If someone says to you "please don't call me Liz, my name is Elisabeth" would you say the same? Clearly "Liz" is a completely common descriptor and not offensive in itself (Many people are find with it), but that person has politely made it clear to you that they prefer not to be called that.
I would say, if you keep on calling her "Liz" you're being rude, and if you argue that someone shouldn't have a preference about how they're referred to then you've crossed a line beyond "actively rude."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am very curious as to:
Why do you find the two terms offensive?
Is there another way to label the two groups that is not offensive to you? (actors vs statisticians) ( most people do not like Monty Hall type vs (I do not remember how the labeled it))
There are many types of game's and gamer's out there and IMHO being able to identify what groups you are in helps improve your enjoyment and possibly those around you also.
For example I have seen the two opposites a roll-player in a role-playing game (which the role-players found offensive) and a role player in a roll-playing game (which the roll players found offensive).IMHO they are just two styles of playing and should not be offensive in any way.
Sometimes if you simply change to name of something without changing the intent behind the name you have not done anything. ie if you decide not to cuss and instead say bagel dog without changing your thoughts behind cussing eventually bagel dog becomes a cuss word.
MDC
It's offensive because it's an exclusive term used to stereotypically reference a group of people when these said people do not actually call themselves such. Roleplay vs rollplayer is generally only used by "roleplayers" as a way to describe what makes them different than a non-existent group of "rollplayers". (there are of course some counter-culture formations who have started calling themselves rollplayer's unabashedly, but this is only in the context of it being used against them previously.)
the point is, they're not actually groups but a way to simply strengthen ones own ego(as in the psychological term not pop culture usage) at the expense of someone else's ego. to be clear, it strengthens your own identity by attacking the supposed identity of others. In essence it's almost a strawman accusation to strengthen your own identity.
It's, by nature, a term used in offense, to attack. by it's use you suggest that people who you call rollplayer's don't roleplay and thus are doing it wrong, it's the implied connotation by the use of the phrase roleplay versus rollplay.
to be clear, power gaming is a more accurate and LESS offensive term(simply because it isn't put in direct opposition to any given play method), and yes, it is still an offensive term.
I could go more into the psychology and linguistics of what makes a term suited for excluding groups of people and thus judgmental and offensive, but I don't think people would care to go down the rabbit hole that much, but basically, by simply using this term in non-purposeful offense you suggest to the wider audience that believing there's a distinction between roleplayers and rollplayers is okay. Thus, the usage inherently polarizes the groups of people involved.
If you can't tell the difference between an insult and a descriptive use of a word like "rollplayer" then it really isn't on me.If someone says to you "please don't call me Liz, my name is Elisabeth" would you say the same? Clearly "Liz" is a completely common descriptor and not offensive in itself (Many people are find with it), but that person has politely made it clear to you that they prefer not to be called that.
I would say, if you keep on calling her "Liz" you're being rude, and if you argue that someone shouldn't have a preference about how they're referred to then you've crossed a line beyond "actively rude."
Apples and Oranges.
In the case of your name it changes nothing when someone calls you by something else. AND if you just met this person and they don't know you prefer "Elizabeth" and call you "liz" AND you get offended then yes YOU are the source of the insult. Now if they continue calling you Liz then they are either making a point or being rude.
BUT that is NOT what is happening here.
In the case of Rollplayer there is no other word that fits the style it is describing without including entirely unrelated baggage into the mix. Take optimizer for example, it includes the impression that you not only like the numbers side of the game but ALSO that you try to optimize those numbers as well as you can. Bad fit.
So NO it is NOT a case of personal preference but rather dictionary differences. If you insisted I never use the word CAT ever again and instead ONLY referred to all pets as DOGS. Then you are much closer to what your asking. And if you get offended when I talk about "cats" then you are the one being rude.
And yet that seems to be exactly what you are trying to do; telling me how I should talk. THAT is rude.No, I'm simply advising you to follow the community guidelines. If you think that is rude, please insult me.
A perfect illustration of completely missing the point.
|
I'd like to see an end to the term 'roll-playing', regardless of whether it is or isn't insulting.
It's confusing to have a term that sounds identical to 'role-playing', and using them both makes any verbal exchange farcical.
I've found it leads to blank stares, and 'Why are you objecting to my roleplaying?', until someone mimes the rolling of an imaginary die, then 'Ohhhh, you mean rollplaying.'.
I'd like to skip that unnecessary stage, and get to discussing the actual area of disagreement, for which language and terms already exist.
If someone is building PCs more powerful than the rest of the group, then discuss how that makes encounter design difficult, which is an objective truth, without needing to make it a fault on their part.
The solution could be that the GM and optimiser/powerplayer help others to up their game, so everyone's in the same league.
If you think a player keeps making carbon copies of the same PC, then address that. Are they short of ideas, or are they feeling pressured that they always have to play that character type, because no-one else is willing?
If they don't seem to be engaging with the setting or plot? Is that a player fault? Or have they not received an adequate description?
It may be time to lend them a copy of the campaign gazetteer, or have a recap session, so that '"Ah, now I understand why we're here, doing this. Gotcha."
And if it's a case of them using out of character knowledge, metagaming, breaking character, breaking genre, derailing the non-combat scenes with anachronistic jokes, that's something that needs to be covered in a table rule, and made clear it applies to everybody. Not just the 'problem' player.
And so on. Every perceived problem needs addressing at its core, with specifics. Attempts to correct someone's play style, using vague labels as 'rollplaying' won't work, since they don't call out specific behaviours.
|
It's not the building of characters that is why the term was coined. It's the play style. As I mentioned, it refers to people who few the game as simply a board game instead of telling a story. Which isn't inherently a bad thing, but the entire group has to agree to it. Since combat rules for Pathfinder are extremely detailed and assume you're using a map, the game does lend it's self to this style of play.
But if the GM is trying to tell a story, and the other players are trying to tell a story, then your trying to simply play a fantasy dungeon crawler board game can be disruptive. Especially people who then try to force the rest of the group into this mold. Which isn't all of them, but enough that it's noticeable.
It's kind of like why a rules lawyer is so annoying for the GM. Rules lawyers are always strictly Rules As Written, and can't accept that the GM has the right to make their own rulings. Such as I wouldn't let someone use a +dex belt to qualify for TWF feats. A rules lawyer would argue them self blue in the face that I must allow this because it's written in the rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's kind of like why a rules lawyer is so annoying for the GM. Rules lawyers are always strictly Rules As Written, and can't accept that the GM has the right to make their own rulings. Such as I wouldn't let someone use a +dex belt to qualify for TWF feats. A rules lawyer would argue them self blue in the face that I must allow this because it's written in the rules.
A GM can create house-rules, but they should be announced prior to character creation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not the building of characters that is why the term was coined. It's the play style. As I mentioned, it refers to people who few the game as simply a board game instead of telling a story. Which isn't inherently a bad thing, but the entire group has to agree to it. Since combat rules for Pathfinder are extremely detailed and assume you're using a map, the game does lend it's self to this style of play.
And everyone that makes a mechanically functional has had the term applied to them via people in the Church of Stormwind. It's been used far more to mean "you suck" than it has to explain an arbitrary but valid choice of how to play the game.
If you can't tell the difference between an insult and a descriptive use of a word like "rollplayer" then it really isn't on me. I'm not the one getting offended by a slight you imagined all in your own head. Since your the one upset it is by definition your problem.
Okay, if you feel the word "rollplayer" is just a descriptive word, what does it mean? And this meaning needs to have a fairly high percentage of people that would also indicate that meaning as the first and default meaning.
I'm pretty sure I've gotten at least a dozen different definitions of what "rollplayer" means by all the people that say it's not an insult, while everyone that says it's an insult is in agreement that it's definition is an insult.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's kind of like why a rules lawyer is so annoying for the GM. Rules lawyers are always strictly Rules As Written, and can't accept that the GM has the right to make their own rulings. Such as I wouldn't let someone use a +dex belt to qualify for TWF feats. A rules lawyer would argue them self blue in the face that I must allow this because it's written in the rules.
The rules are the default assumptions of the game. If you're gonna arbitrarily change them in a substantive manner, you need to tell the players that so they can make choices based on how your version of the rules actually functions.
Not informing people if such things up front is a pretty big dick move and basically lying to the players about how your game is gonna work. Which is, needless to say, bad.
Most rules lawyers are actually fine with House Rules of this sort (or indeed almost any sort) as long as you inform them of them at the beginning of the game, rather than having them be a 'gotcha' later on. I have an 18 page House Rule document including large numbers of changes in the fundamental way some Classes work...and have never had a single complaint from any player (which have included some very RAW people). Why? They're written down and clearly laid out, not imposed arbitrarily with no notice.
The rules are the default assumptions of the game. If you're gonna arbitrarily change them in a substantive manner, you need to tell the players that so they can make choices based on how your version of the rules actually functions.
The rules are going to be read in plain english with an eye for intent,sense, and balance because they were written in plain english with an eye for intent, sense, and balance. Hyperliteral reading has a horrible track record.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you can't tell the difference between an insult and a descriptive use of a word like "rollplayer" then it really isn't on me. I'm not the one getting offended by a slight you imagined all in your own head. Since your the one upset it is by definition your problem.
The foolishness of avoiding a word which might be used at some point as an insult is perhaps better illustrated with another word. How about "man" There are plenty of women offended by the use of man in a misogynistic fashion such as in "man up" or "be a man about it" so are you going to NEVER use that word again? Or are you going to admit it is foolish to avoid words completely just because someone used it as an insult at you?
Ah, the old "If I punch you in the face it's your fault that you feel pain" argument. Third time it's been used on me this year.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules are the default assumptions of the game. If you're gonna arbitrarily change them in a substantive manner, you need to tell the players that so they can make choices based on how your version of the rules actually functions.The rules are going to be read in plain english with an eye for intent,sense, and balance because they were written in plain english with an eye for intent, sense, and balance. Hyperliteral reading has a horrible track record.
Sure, and I agree with that entirely. But I'm talking actual changes, not interpretation of the fuzzy bits. To use the example I was responding to, a Belt of Dex qualifying you for TWF is simply how the rules read, not an interpretation of a questionable bit, and if you're gonna change that, people should know that you're doing so up front.
other stuffstuff
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here.
In my experience I have seen people often ticked off if they are called roll-players because it has been often used to ask them to leave a game as their style did not fit. I have seen this a lot more then the other situation in which role-players are asked to leave as they do not fit that type of game.
So what do you call them?
IMHO no matter what descriptive phrase you use those people will be offended as they are not getting to play their preferred style and are either asked to change or leave the game in question.
Engineers does not even come close as a term to me as one poster expressed above. Power Gamer's I have seen in both groups as in general they simply pick the most powerful things, but the role group tends to limit it based on fluff and other things and the roll group often does not consider it.Also in general a term used to describe is not an attack, ie a red pine tree is descriptive and I do not think anyone thinks that is an attack.
What I think you are talking about is people taking offense at others not liking their play style or being personally let down by being asked to leave a game or not allowed to play in a game because of said play style.I can see you point in that often bullies use words and actions to strengthen their own egos, but it is the combination of the them that has the effect, ie words +actions and intent. Not simply the words themselves.
MDC
call them what they are? someone who has a different playstyle that doesn't mesh with the group?
we're not describing physical attributes, we're describing supposed personality characteristics, something a fair bit less easy to label than the color red.
and no, words have implied connotations, meaning they have a meaning beyond their definition. The connotation for rollplay is negative, implying they lack some form of required gameplay focus or ability. by calling someone this term regardless of intent you inadvertently belittle how they play, especially when it can be simply completely wrong.
put simply it's a word that tries to wrap up an entire person's playstyle in a neat little package that probably fits very few people in actuality. by using it, you ignore that individual's individual nature and write him off as simply a rollplayer. it's inherently dismissive.
calling someone a rollplayer is never constructive to a conversation as it's an assuming term, you could potentially ask him if he believes himself to be a rollplayer, but calling someone a rollplayer is simply an insult regardless of how much you're trying to use it to describe them.
for another point of clarity, it's like calling all pine trees between, brown to purple, red, even though most of them would never call themselves red. It simply ignores the "person you're using it on"'s opinion of how he plays.
even clearer it's more like using only hot or cool colors to describe them, you're a hot colored pine tree, isn't particularly useful...
It's not the building of characters that is why the term was coined. It's the play style. As I mentioned, it refers to people who few the game as simply a board game instead of telling a story. Which isn't inherently a bad thing, but the entire group has to agree to it. Since combat rules for Pathfinder are extremely detailed and assume you're using a map, the game does lend it's self to this style of play.
But if the GM is trying to tell a story, and the other players are trying to tell a story, then your trying to simply play a fantasy dungeon crawler board game can be disruptive. Especially people who then try to force the rest of the group into this mold. Which isn't all of them, but enough that it's noticeable.
It's kind of like why a rules lawyer is so annoying for the GM. Rules lawyers are always strictly Rules As Written, and can't accept that the GM has the right to make their own rulings. Such as I wouldn't let someone use a +dex belt to qualify for TWF feats. A rules lawyer would argue them self blue in the face that I must allow this because it's written in the rules.
yeah, like if you told me this after i got the belt and we're like "that's not how it works at my table" i'd promptly ask for a full rebuild, if I was denied, then the character would be retired, some congenital disease maybe, would spring forth(thus cure spells wouldn't work since that is their natural state) and the character would have to step down from the throne of hero-dom.
If those are being directed towards someone or towards a group then yes, those need to stop too as they are offensive oversimplifications.
I will comment my experience with them though, I don't I've ever seen those directed at someone and are hardly used on the boards. And bad GM if used in the context of good/bad evaluation is the most common. Though that's not to the GM but to a player saying that their GM is awful.
Just to be crystal clear, you would say that all uses of 'tyrant GM' 'bad gm' 'unimaginable gm' etcetera need to go away too, right? Or that it isn't a unilateral disarmament? Which in many of these cases it is: 'we have our insults and will keep using them but you need to stop using the words WE don't like.'
no those pretty easily fall under the same area of "umbrella combative terms"
If you never see 'tyrant' applied to a gm, you aren't looking very hard
you also don't have to look very hard to see rollplay versus roleplay either.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being the Game Master is a delicate balance to maintain. You spend hours each week creating your adventure, months or years creating the world setting if it's a custom setting. When you show up to the session, you're prepared for the adventure you planned to run. You have the wizard's tower mapped out, wandering encounter tables, scripted encounters, traps, and all that planned out. This is a lot of work if you're not running a published adventure.
If the party then decides to ignore the adventure you brought, now what? One session when I had to create an entire dungeon on the spot because the players added 2+2 and came up with aardvark, it ended up being a fun session. One trap I created on the spot ended up being ridiculously complex and nasty because the thief kept critically botching the disarm check. I didn't hurt anyone with the trap since the only one caught in it had made his reflex save. But it was stupidly complex and overly silly. Every botched disarm added something else to the trap. The party KNEW I was making all this stuff for the trap up on the fly. Only to cap off the dungeon I'd had to create as they explored with a room that held an illusionary beholder, and a throne which would teleport them to where the actual adventure is set.
It was fun, but at the same time frustrating. I've had players completely derail a campaign because instead of dealing with the prepared storyline, they decide to head in the opposite direction. To an extent, the GM does need to force the issue sometimes. YOu join a session running Crypt of the Everflame, then decide that rather then doing that adventure you want to go out and hunt bandits... Seriously?
But it's possible to go too far too as the GM. I've had a GM set up an impossible siege because his story demanded we must fail, get captured, and then have to escape. To force us into this siege we were given orders to come back "with your shield or on it, and if you refuse I'll have you killed". When we came up with a brilliant if flawed plan that allowed us to win the siege, the GM punished us for not following his script.
If the party then decides to ignore the adventure you brought, now what?
This happens to me a lot. The answer is that I have 2-3 others ready to go, in my back pocket, so to speak. I've got hundreds more in my library, catalogued and easy to insert. So I allow them to go do whatever it is they decided. Usually I find that they come back to the one I'd intended by their own decision once they've finished their side trek; curiosity is a powerful motivator for my groups. But I don't tell them they have to.
As DM, it's my job to run the game world. It's not my job to run their PCs, or make major decisions for them.
As a player, I try to cut the DM some slack, and make it a point to stick with whatever adventure he or she has prepped. But that doesn't make him/her a perfect DM; rather, it makes me a considerate player (or, to an extent, an enabler, if you want to be harsh about it).
This is why preparation GMing [I can't give detailed advice as I'm a zero prep GM, aside from helping the players to level up and-when using published material instead of made up stuff- pre-reading the adventures] works best if you prepare encounters rather than adventures and wing the story aspect creatively.
I'm borderline OCD when it comes to overprepping, and yes, I painstakingly prep encounters and NPCs. I give them motives and assets, then allow the story to proceed -- if the PCs ignore them, their plans advance, if not, they react appropriately and we see what happens.
To be fair, very few people are anywhere near as good as Logue, when he's on his game.
If the party then decides to ignore the adventure you brought, now what?
The reactor outside San Francisco melts down, the AI is loose in Cyberspace, and the entire shadowrun campaign takes on a post-apocalyptic tone.
Or so my players found out.
|
|
This is why preparation GMing [I can't give detailed advice as I'm a zero prep GM, aside from helping the players to level up and-when using published material instead of made up stuff- pre-reading the adventures] works best if you prepare encounters rather than adventures and wing the story aspect creatively.
That's still a lot of prep work right there. You're creating the encounters, all the encounters. You're having to ensure they are balanced to be challenging but not overwhelming. What you're doing is creating even more work for yourself then you otherwise would. Eventually a good GM will have a stock of adventures they can pull out, because they ran them in the past with other groups. But that's not an immediate thing.
I have hundreds of 2nd edition adventures I created and still have the notes for. But if I want to use them for Pathfinder, I have to take the time to go over every encounter and update it for PF. I then have to check the adventure's balance. Encounters that were perfectly balanced in 2nd edition may be too weak in PF, or even too strong. It all depends on how the monsters got updated over the years.
When you're making it up, I find it's infinitely easier to go with an Open World motif rather than dungeoning. But dungeoning can work out pretty well if you have an artist type in the group sketching a map as you go.
Not always an option. I had to make up a dungeon on the spot because the players got all the clues that goblins are abducting villagers and taking them overland to the west, and concluded (somehow) "there's orc slavers in the sewers". This depite the fact the hamlet had no sewer system. It barely had 20 buildings, two of which were the blacksmith's forge (he made nails and horse shoes, not weapons) and the general store for the area. So I had to on the spot create a sewer system for this small hamlet, and an orc slaver base hidden in that sewer system. Because the players were 150% convinced there MUST be an orc slaver base in the sewers (that didn't exist) and refused to accept there wasn't a sewer system despite the evidence.
And when you DO need a dungeon? Because the players will be assaulting a castle at some point. Or going into a cave system. Or any number of other reasons you need a dungeon. Yes, these days you can get flip maps and dungeon tiles that can be used for the map. But you, the GM need to know the positioning of those encounters, traps, and what not. And if you don't have a flip map or dungeon tiles that fit what you need? You're creating your own map. Even if you are using dungeon tiles or better yet those awesome Dwarven Forge dungeon tiles that I so want... You need to map out the dungeon.
A GM shouldn't have a script, at most they should have a rough outline with a bundle of encounters to slot into the story wherever they make sense.
You're both right, and wrong IMO. A good adventure does have a script, but not one that's immutable. You as the GM have to plan out what the adventure's villain is trying to accomplish. Is there an encounter that can have multiple resolutions? You just created a script for the encounter that accounts for that. Is a key point in the adventure rescuing someone who was taken captive? You need to script how that manages to happen.
As an example, for a campaign I ran it starts with the players meeting what appears initially to be just a prostitute. They then discover the woman is far more important then that when royal guards try to capture her. For the adventure, this woman NEEDS to be captures, but it's possible and even probable the players will win the fight. Or even talk their way out of fighting. So, how do you ensure she gets captured?
I did so by planning out her actions during the battle. If the party manages to avoid a fight or end it fast enough, she's safe (for the moment). If the fight lasts long enough for her to escape through the second floor and reach the stables, she flees (stealing someone's horse in the process). By the time the party catches up to her it's just in time to see her abductor riding off. Or they find signs of a struggle and a scrap of her cloths if they failed several tracking checks. If the fight takes too long she's caught by guards who were stationed outside. And if they did manage to protect her, she slips away in the night, only for whoever is on watch to hear her screaming as she gets caught.
This is a good way to script events that are important to the plot of an adventure without taking away player input. And if they manage to keep her safe in the short term, they get more information on just what is going on. While the capture was always going to happen, the players at least have the illusion of being able to prevent it. And even though her being captured was a critical plot point for the adventure, I also had plans laid out for if the players manage to prevent her initial capture and stop her from slipping away.
|
|
I'm sure there are people who can pull it off. I also suspect they're few and far between. At least for complex campaigns with multiple antagonists counter plotting at each other and the PCs caught in the middle.
The best GMs I've played with can make it look effortless, but like Kirth, that's because of a lot of background work. They can improvise on the fly, but then need to spend time working out the consequences.
Exactly. For one campaign I'm working on (not ready to run it yet) I first have been using Realm Works to create a database of important locations, kingdoms, groups, people, and events. This is the basic world building stage I'm on. I've not yet started working on the first adventure yet, because I'm still creating the world setting. I know there will be people who are expected to know the world's history, so I have to create that lore in advance. What's the geo-political environment of the various nations? Have to figure that out. Any behind the scenes players? I'm still creating them, and deciding what their short term, long term, and end goals actually are.
While for the campaign I have the general flow of the overall campaign's story already figured out, without doing the background work it's going to fall flat. And while I can improvise an adventure with the best of them, and have done so in the past, there needs to be a framework to improvise around. In an already established campaign setting it's easy to create something off the top of your head. You already have all that background detail fleshed out for you. You know who the political players are, and what general plots are going on. For a homebrew campaign you're doing all that work yourself.
Mmmm, post-apoc Shadowrun. Should've just sent them out to the Mojave. ;) But hmmm ... change that to San Onofre between Los Angeles and San Diego ... and then you have fallout falling in the Mojave, turning that place's wierdness dial up to 11!! ;D
I submit there is a difference between an impromptu session(I can do those quite readily) and an impromptu campaign. The long form story which is a campaign is much harder to do by the seat of your pants and maintain any level of consistency .
I don't think it's that hard. There are things I recommend though.
1) Keep copious notes.
For my campaign, I have about 4-5 pages of notes per session. Based on those notes, I build a small prep document that hits the major highlights and reminds me of themes that I'm working on. Then whatever happens, happens. Sometimes I know where we'll be in 2-3 sessions, but that's only cause it's painfully obvious, but often times I have no clue what's there or what will happen there until the moment in game play brings us there.
2) Don't worry about fine level details
I have a player who wrote down a contact (we use a mechanical resource to denote levels of friendship with NPCs). Despite my several hundred pages of notes (see above), I have no clue who that NPC is. I've told the player I have no clue. To compensate the player for this, he gets to reinvent the NPC and tell me how they'll be useful to the player. We don't care if the NPC is the exact same NPC as he encountered roughly 2 years ago. We just care that we have a good time and that our sessions are fun.
We don't maintain perfect consistency, but we maintain enough to be fun. It's not like we can pop in the DVD of previous sessions and go over them in fine detail. We don't require the same level of consistency as we might from a TV show or movie.
|
|
What is an adventure? A series of encounters tied together by an overarching story. Take the following encounters
1. party approaches a farmhouse and hears a woman's scream. A group of armored men are attacking the farmhouse, one of them rides off with a bound woman.
2. a wandering bard is found wounded along the side of the road, the bard mentions he was attacked by royal guards
3. A patrol of armored men wearing the same livery as encounter 1 come across the players and attack
4. a divine messenger warns the party's cleric of a great evil arising nearby during the night
5-18. Party infiltrates and fights their way through the local duke's stronghold
19. party confronts the local duke, and try preventing him from sacrificing a woman to summon a demon lord
These are all single encounters, 19 encounters in total. What ties them together is the story of why they happened. To summon the demon lord he pledged himself to, the local duke needs to sacrifice a 3 month pregnant woman. Towards this end, he had his guards kidnap the wife of a farmer, the players arrived in time to see the wife being carried off. The bard was attacked because he was poking his nose into the duke's business too often. In order to prevent the demon from being summoned, the players have to stop the duke.
That is an adventure. Or at least the bare bones of one. What do you think an "adventure" would be?! The Pathfinder Society scenarios are each adventures. Crypt of the Everflame or Master of the Fallen Fortress are adventures. A given adventure may or may not be completed in a single session, but a campaign consists of a series of multiple adventures.
Different campaign styles may or may not have each adventure being related to each other. An episodic style campaign may feel like a "monster of the week" situation. Each adventure is entirely self contained, and the only common factor is the heroes. Or a campaign it's self may have an over arcing story line which is furthered by the adventures being ran. Maybe the duke was part of a greater plan, and that adventure was just the tip of the iceburg. Or maybe the duke was working on his own.
When running an AP you're running a series of linked adventures. When running random modules and scenarios you're running unrelated adventures (usually). Again, what did you think I meant when I refer to an adventure?
Creating a given encounter may not take very long. "Hmm, I'll have three goblin warriors, a goblin shaman, and... a chieften in this encounter." That's all you need to do, right? What tactics do the goblins in the encounter use? Why are the goblins there? Why is the party even fighting these goblins? Is this the goblin village? If not, where is the fight taking place? Do you need a map for the area?
|
|
Typically when I create an adventure I have the following things I made for it:
1. maps of any dungeons, keeps, or other buildings I'll need for the adventure. This may just be the GM copy with notes on where traps/enemies are, or include a player map as well.
2. A random encounter table
3. A room by room brief description of what is in the dungeons/buildings. Any traps, enemies, other dangers, and treasures will be listed here.
4. Stat blocks for all static and possible random encounters
5. Any handouts I need for the adventure such as notes the players can find
6. Notes on what the actual plot of the adventure is, why the player should care about it, and any background details they may or may not uncover. This is also where I list consequences for if the players mess up or simply ignore what's going on.
7. information on any unusual treasures within the adventure, both for my use and a cue card I can hand the player if they find the item and figure out how it works
8. Any plot hooks that may tie into the next adventure I am thinking of running, for example the party manages to stop the duke from summoning his demon lord but find a document that hints that they just fought an imposter and the real duke was killed by a group of cultists in another location
These notes let me run a given adventure I created multiple times, as well as figure out how to drop it into almost any campaign.