Official ICE Forums
Gamer's Corner => General Discussion => Topic started by: arcadayn on October 13, 2011, 01:42:45 PM
-
It's been a while since I've posted around here. For the past couple of years, I've been completely sucked into the Old School Renaissance (OSR). I was reading one of my favorite OSR blogs (Playing D&D With Porn Stars) and the author name dropped Rolemaster. It created an association in my head as I read the blog post, which has led me to sharing the link with everyone here - but especially everyone at ICE.
http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2011/10/platformyness.html?zx=3781719965a14073
If ICE were to go this route with adventure publishing, I think they could attract a large new audience. The OSR crowd is big and growing. I generally see a lot of Roleamster love on the blogs and forums. It would be a great market for ICE to tap into.
BTW, I highly recommend Zak's blog, and his rpg city toolkit, Vornheim. It is one of the coolest rpg books ever published and his blog is full of tons of excellent advice and free materials.
-
I've been involved with the Old School Rules thingy too. I recently ordered some 1st edition Rolemaster books to take a look at them, and maybe do some old school gaming.
-
I guess I never left Old School and didn't realize it... :o
I've always liked the idea of a fairly simple set of core rules (coincidentally that's sort of what RM1 and RM2 look like) with additions and the like that can be plugged in through settings, modules, and so on. Some of the Companion stuff (IMO) started spinning a bit out of control, but easy to understand and modify basic rules combined with good support in the add-on areas is always a plus.
-
Using HARP's goal based experience system as an example: adventures should not be written as "what's going to happen" but more "what could happen", whose doing it, and why. This allows the adventure to be more proactive/reactive than a story with fill-in-the-blanks. Of course it should have a starting premise that addresses the above two questions.
If things are going to happen a certain way--no matter what--that's not a game: that's a book or a movie.
-
This is why I never was much of a fan of modules. They tend to be too "foregone conclusion" for my taste. To be fair, I must admit that my experience of players is such that, in order to avoid that, the module would need a pretty comprehensive description of the country in which the adventure takes place, all adjacent countries, and every person, animal, plant, mineral, political organization and business in all of them in order to cover all the possibilities. And that's at a minimum.
In short, I've never seen a GM build a box so big his players wouldn't try to go outside of it.
:o
-
I don't mind modules having a "best ending". What I find most infuriating is in the middle of the module where it goes "event x will happen no matter what". Unless of course, event x is a natural disaster that is supposed to happen at a certain time on a certain day. I'm thinking more of the modules that temporarily liberate the PCs of their MacGuffins/Infinity Plus One Swords.
-
My personal preference for "Modules" is akin to a lot of the MERP materials. Give me the setting information, NPC's, maps, etc... then give me some ideas for adventures while leaving a lot of room to come up with my own.
I've been (very) slowly working on a city setting over the years. Mostly pieces together from various materials (like the map of Ankh-Morpork). But it would eventually be a fully fleshed out city (maybe 1/3rd of the buildings actually fully complete with shops, floorplans, NPCs, etc) that you could just hand to a GM and let the players wander around in.
-
This is why I never was much of a fan of modules. They tend to be too "foregone conclusion" for my taste. To be fair, I must admit that my experience of players is such that, in order to avoid that, the module would need a pretty comprehensive description of the country in which the adventure takes place, all adjacent countries, and
The "forgone conclusion" doesn't seem right to me. It was never a sure thing that you would succeed or even survive, no "forgone conclusion". The part about something happening to the PCs: So what? It is an adventure, meant to test them, and be hard, and sometimes that means you don't get your cool stuff. (What it does is make you very glad to have them when - if - you get them back.)
Maybe making them area source books where the location is detailed (somewhat - not to GOF liking I imagine :o), with new critters, items, and even character options would make them more marketable.
-
Actually I think we're all saying the same thing:
They tend to be too "foregone conclusion" for my taste.
What I find most infuriating is in the middle of the module where it goes "event x will happen no matter what". Unless of course, event x is a natural disaster that is supposed to happen at a certain time on a certain day.
Give me the setting information, NPC's, maps, etc... then give me some ideas for adventures while leaving a lot of room to come up with my own.
Maybe making them area source books where the location is detailed, with new critters, items, and even character options would make them more marketable.
Am I the only one seeing a pattern here? ;)
-
Sounds like area sourcebooks are the way to go, though I still miss the definitive adventure module. When I picked up the newest module, it was just a lot of fun looking through it (only if I wasn't going to be playing in it, of course), looking at all the neat pictures, and maps, and ideas. To this day, I will occasionally grab one up and look through it, invariably getting re-energized and motivated in some way, for more gaming.
-
Am I the only one seeing a pattern here? ;)
Yep, that's why I dislike the request to make "modules". I think, overall, sourcebooks are the way to go. Although I can see inserting a full on pre-made scenario in it for newbies.
I think part of the trouble is that traditional modules are great for people new to GM'ing, but the majority of the fan base is (for good or bad) not new. So, imo, for traditional modules to do very well they need new gamers... which is one of the biggest issues facing table top gaming. The initial attractiveness of it compared to computer based setups is problematic. In a way it's simply a fundamental generation gap.
-
I think part of the trouble is that traditional modules are great for people new to GM'ing, but the majority of the fan base is (for good or bad) not new.
Well regardless, if you don't want your products to be "throwaways", you have to give the person who bought it a reason to still want it years later, even if he was new back when the product was.
So to just rearrange what you're saying...
I think, overall, sourcebooks are the way to go.
but
...for traditional modules to do very well they need new gamers... which is one of the biggest issues facing table top gaming.
and therefore
...I can see inserting a full on pre-made scenario in it for newbies.
No? ;)
-
GOF, you've more or less outlined my thought process when it comes to designing a setting/sourcebook. ;D
It's always important to have one or two "canned" adventures in a product, both so new folks can get a feel for the game and so that the designer can show others a "school solution" for the world or setting that's been created. It's a great way to convey the feel you had in mind when you designed things. Does that mean the feel's engraved in stone? Certainly not, but it can be helpful when you pick up a product if the designer gives you an idea of what might have been behind that product in terms of game theory, feel, or even the way villages might be laid out or the common raiding patters of orcs (things that might not surface in the initial sourcebook but can still be bloody useful).
-
I find modules are most useful in a few ways.
- Conventions. Modules tend to be self-contained, and that's ideal for one-shot gaming.
- Surprise! Players take things in a direction you hadn't completed, or maybe even anticipated. Here a module can be a good filler til you catch up. :)
- On the spot! You've been asked to DM; you didn't expect to do so, but you'd really like to, even though you've nothing of your own prepared.
-
Well then, there's a use the experienced gamer has for the pre-gen adventure he never played back when he invested in the setting sourcebook.
;)
-
I think one of the problems is that modules are aimed at two different audiences. The first is the beginner who needs the formatting and a lot of stuff spelled out for them and the second is the advanced GM who does not need all of the stuff that the into GM needs.
MDC
-
The first is the beginner who needs the formatting and a lot of stuff spelled out for them...
Sure, but if he enjoyed it back when he needed everything spelled out for him, he's probably going to continue playing... which means he's probably going to want the sourcebook. So the 2 items should probably be folded into a single product anyway, no?
-
The first is the beginner who needs the formatting and a lot of stuff spelled out for them...
Sure, but if he enjoyed it back when he needed everything spelled out for him, he's probably going to continue playing... which means he's probably going to want the sourcebook. So the 2 items should probably be folded into a single product anyway, no?
Correct, IMO. There's a place for stand-alone modules, but I see them as supporting sourcebooks. Games Workshop used to be really good at this approach (not sure what WFRP has turned into since then, but their tabletop stuff follows the same dynamic approach).
Sourcebooks with included modules/adventures and some modules linked directly to the sourcebook setting seem to me to be the way to go. It allows you to build a coherent narrative...one that players and GMs can get into and feel part of.
-
Paizo's APs are probably the best-selling campaign and adventure material out there, although they also sell conventional modules (and it continues, apparently, to be worth their while to do so), embedded within the same campaign world. WotC found that TSR weren't making money (rather the opposite) from that stuff. I think that many companies find it hard to make both rulesbooks and modules and sell both (Paizo are doing a rather spiffing job of it at the moment, however).
It all seems a bit academic for ICE at the moment, anyhow. If they can grow the playerbase then the preferences of the new people will be important but how important are modules in the initial growing of the playerbase? It might just be better to give a bunch of scenarios away for free over the web, to begin with.
Should perhaps pick a default world, as well...
-
The first is the beginner who needs the formatting and a lot of stuff spelled out for them...
Sure, but if he enjoyed it back when he needed everything spelled out for him, he's probably going to continue playing... which means he's probably going to want the sourcebook. So the 2 items should probably be folded into a single product anyway, no?
I agree that both are needed. I also like the idea of further adventures in the area for modules as well as Defend's idea of side adventures not explained in the module. (I do not remember what he calls it right now off the top of my head.)
MDC
-
Sourcebooks with included modules/adventures and some modules linked directly to the sourcebook setting seem to me to be the way to go. It allows you to build a coherent narrative...one that players and GMs can get into and feel part of.
That makes sense. And packed with heaps of artwork! ;)
-
Sourcebooks with included modules/adventures and some modules linked directly to the sourcebook setting seem to me to be the way to go. It allows you to build a coherent narrative...one that players and GMs can get into and feel part of.
That makes sense. And packed with heaps of artwork! ;)
I have to say (again) that the artwork is one of the biggies when it comes to getting me to buy a product. Seriously. Seriously. When I grabbed that next module, or other game book, the first thing I did was flip through it to check out the art. (And the maps! Gotta have cool maps.)
That is why I was so happy with the HARP Extreme: the artwork was great.
-
The Shadow World Tales of the Loremasters books were good. Detailing small areas and adventures.............complete with maps etc...
-
The Shadow World Tales of the Loremasters books were good. Detailing small areas and adventures.............complete with maps etc...
Yup, you add another 80-100 pages detailing the areas more, with more NPCs, locations, etc.. and you have what everyone is talking about. (Me, I am OK with straight adventures.)
-
I'm good with either or. Some of my favorite gaming memories are old D&D modules...
-
I'm good with either or. Some of my favorite gaming memories are old D&D modules...
Remember when Shrine of Tamoacan came out? Awesome! The Giants Series? Shrine of Kuo-toa? The The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth? Oh, oh: Expedition to the Barrier Peaks? One of my all time favorites? They are all classic and awesome. (But not awesome because they are classic, they are just both.)
-
You left out the Slave Lords series.... And the Desert of Desolation series...
I would definitely include them with the list that you put together.
-
Me, I am OK with straight adventures.
I'm fine with a linear adventure as well, my main concern, and what seems to be everyone else's is the "foregone conclusion" approach to adventure events.
-
The "The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun" was an eye opener for me for me on page 12.
A List of how the monsters in the dungeon would respond to an alarm and emerge to kick the crap out of the PCs.
If you rolled in to lay out those first few gnolls and norkers. . .it was a 6-10 hour session of continuous combat from there on as everyone inside piled out on you.
Never before had a module actually given tactics and logic to the inhabitants, who before that, remained in room #3 where they belonged.
-
"Remain in Room #3" IMHO a great name for an RPG Company.
MDC
-
That is why I was so happy with the HARP Extreme: the artwork was great.
Thanks very much! 8)
I have to admit, for maps, I do prefer the old hand drawn ones as opposed to the PC generated ones.
-
I have to admit, for maps, I do prefer the old hand drawn ones as opposed to the PC generated ones.
Some of the PC generated ones can be good - especially when they can place all the trappings in the various locations. By trappings I mean things like chests, desks, lamps, etc....
-
I agree with you. This day and age it's more economical to use digital maps that can be tweaked at a moments notice. Although, if it something that's well thought out in advance, one could reproduce that nostalgic look.
I like the idea of an area source book for RM. Thing is it ain't going to come to light if nobody approaches Nicholas with a proper fleshed out idea. I think there was talk of a collabarated effort sometime ago?
-
I'm fine with a linear adventure as well, my main concern, and what seems to be everyone else's is the "foregone conclusion" approach to adventure events.
Well I stand by my earlier statement that a GM can't build a box so big his players won't try to go outside it. So between the players' normal reaction when they feel they are being railroaded and the usual desire to look for a different /innovative solutions to problems, I feel like if you don't have the area sourcebook, when your players go outside the box of your linear adventure, you're stuck having to make things up on the spot.
Half the point of getting a module is to avoid having to do just that, no?
-
I really like modules with a story (or an adventure). It does (should) not have to be set in stone, forcing the players from A to B to C, but a nice outline of a plotline (or several plots) laid out in one or several possible stories are good. I certainly run such stories without railroading the players. I may put in hints to get them back on track of the story if they deviate too much, but I have thrown away several stories simply because the players chose not to follow the plots or hits that were laid out.
I see several benefits to this:
1 – A well written adventure can (often) be put into any setting, as supposed to a sourcebook that describes people, places and society in a more specific setting. Source books can also be adjusted, but it takes more work.
2 – It is much faster to prepare for a game by reading an adventure instead of a source book.
3 – I think it is faster and thus cheaper to produce an adventure than a source book.
4 – When I have read and digested a source book then I have an environment to play in but not necessarily a story to play. I already have lots of fun stuff for the environment, but like input on cool adventures to play out in them.
-Terry
-
...but I have thrown away several stories simply because the players chose not to follow the plots or hits that were laid out.
Exactly. And the more the information given by your sourcebook/module confines itself to what's germane to the adventure, the more likely you are to find yourself "winging it" when your players choose not to follow the plots or hits that are laid out.
Fair enough, if you're not capable of running off the rails and creating on the fly, you should probably be a player rather than the GM. That comes with the territory. But at the same time, you just negated the value of the money you spent on the sourcebook/module, no?
That's my point: When, not if, the party runs off the rails, the bulk of the book should still be filled with reasons the GM is glad he bought it, even now.
;)
-
When I created my world (which was actually submitted to the original ICE and had been accepted for development prior to the bankruptcy), one of the things I had planned for the enclosed "module" was a fleshed-out description of one region complete with motives and goals for a number of small baronies and city-states. That would give GMs plenty to work with so that if their players went "off the rails" they would be able to flesh out their own adventures in the same region. There was also a fair amount of detail give for each state, kingdom, and race so that GMs could find their own "comfort zone" and plan adventures and such anywhere in the main region they wanted.
-
1 – A well written adventure can (often) be put into any setting, as supposed to a sourcebook that describes people, places and society in a more specific setting. Source books can also be adjusted, but it takes more work.
Actually, I generally see/believe that it is the well written ones that are setting specific. The generic ones tend to be, well, too generic to have flavor (and, thusly, not be good).
2 – It is much faster to prepare for a game by reading an adventure instead of a source book.
Depends upon the size and complexity of the adventure, but I would agree to this in a general sort of way.
3 – I think it is faster and thus cheaper to produce an adventure than a source book.
Like 2, above, maybe and then maybe not. But that isn't the main factor in producing adventures (or in the lack of producing them, actually). The fact that out of a game group, it is generally the GM that is the only one to buy an adventure - as opposed to setting material - means that less than 1 out of 4 (probably higher) gamers is buying adventures on a regular basis. When that pool is not huge to begin with....
4 – When I have read and digested a source book then I have an environment to play in but not necessarily a story to play. I already have lots of fun stuff for the environment, but like input on cool adventures to play out in them.
Yes, but a good sourcebook has flavor just spilling forth from its bindings, enough so that you get tons of ideas just reading it. A very good example of this is the Iron Kingdoms Campaign Guide; as I read it I needed to have a notebook handy because I kept writing down all the ideas it was giving me for the various locations. It doesn't have any mini-adventures in it at all, but I walked away with nearly 2 dozen adventure ideas, several of which could be combined into a campaign.
Now, I hope all of that doesn't make you think I don't like published adventures because that is opposite from the truth: I love them. I wish more games would put them out. Heck, I am subscribed to the Pathfinder Adventure Path series, as well as their module series, not because I think their world is so fantastically awesome, but because I like getting published adventures, complete with maps, NPCs, stories, etc... so that my work as a GM is made easier. (So, laziness is at the core of this for me. No surprise there. :o) I am just able to see both sides of the situation. (It's a curse.)
I just wish Shadow World* had adventure paths or module series coming out regularly, I would so subscribe!
*Enough emphasis to tell you my preferred RM setting?!?! Just in case, it is : SHADOW WORLD.
-
I really like modules with a story (or an adventure). It does (should) not have to be set in stone, forcing the players from A to B to C, but a nice outline of a plotline (or several plots) laid out in one or several possible stories are good. I certainly run such stories without railroading the players. I may put in hints to get them back on track of the story if they deviate too much, but I have thrown away several stories simply because the players chose not to follow the plots or hits that were laid out.
I see several benefits to this:
1 – A well written adventure can (often) be put into any setting, as supposed to a sourcebook that describes people, places and society in a more specific setting. Source books can also be adjusted, but it takes more work.
2 – It is much faster to prepare for a game by reading an adventure instead of a source book.
3 – I think it is faster and thus cheaper to produce an adventure than a source book.
4 – When I have read and digested a source book then I have an environment to play in but not necessarily a story to play. I already have lots of fun stuff for the environment, but like input on cool adventures to play out in them.
-Terry
I agree fully.
As to buying adventures vs buying source books, I have seen it go a couple of ways. the first is where people have $ and most buy the source books and the second is where one or two buy the source books and lend it to others when needed/wanted. So IMHO the pool can be larger but not much larger by a bigger number on average.
MDC
-
Earthdawn has really well done modules
-
Earthdawn has really well done modules
Yup, I really like their Ardanyans Revenge, where they start out in a kaer.
-
Sorry, I kind of posted this topic and disappeared. It seems that my point got lost in the shuffle of the usual pros and cons of adventure writing. What I was pushing is a different form of adventure writing. To quote Zak's blog:
Vornheim is a platform product--it's a thing, but it is also a set of (hopefully) transparent tools for making things--and when I keep saying I hope I don't have to write another RPG book because I hope other people look at it and make things like it, that's what I mean. Things plus platforms that can be used to make more things. Thought about in that way from the beginning.
"Half and half" books. How many times have you read on some blog about a nifty subsystem buried in an ancient module for a game you never saw? Why not explicitly design the thing that way: here is the thing I thought up, and here are the tools I used to think it up or extend it. Since we know that hardly anyone uses these things right out of the box anyway, why not start out assuming a toolkit of extensions is step one in helping GMs use your module?
How many of you have seen/used the Vornheim book? If you haven't, I highly recommend you pop over to Drive Thru and pick up the pdf for $1.35, while it's still on sale.
-
Using HARP's goal based experience system as an example: adventures should not be written as "what's going to happen" but more "what could happen", whose doing it, and why. This allows the adventure to be more proactive/reactive than a story with fill-in-the-blanks. Of course it should have a starting premise that addresses the above two questions.
If things are going to happen a certain way--no matter what--that's not a game: that's a book or a movie.
This is how i write all of my campaigns. I don't base it on events, but on the plot and characters. I have the beginning, checkpoints and an aim but for the most part it's simply based on what the players do and how they interact with the characters I have created. I have found that characters that are real, with real histories, personalities and actually act based on those principles are exciting to a player. They can also be a nightmare to the hack and slash player who does nothing but beat up NPCs. The last campaign I had was a 2nd part to an earlier campaign. Most of the campaign was about things the players didn't know. The whole campaign centered on a plot to murder Elrond (Middle Earth) and to use my player as a mole to kill him. I had the whole plan written down and all the character's in place. In fact the plan had a rather large issue that could have ended the campaign in a hurry. It dealt with an NPC they already knew and if they figured that out the plot was up, but I couldn't help this because it was necessary to the plan. Leaving it out wouldn't have made sense. It didn't matter what happened during the campaign unless the plot was foiled in some fashion. However things got VERY interesting when they killed "in cold blood" a dark priest that was good friends with an overlord of a neighboring city. This caused a tension that could have undermined the whole plot. Well, the campaign ended a long time ago. Turns out the players didn't uncover anything and Elrond got stabbed right in the heart. the look on the players faces when this happened was so much fun. :D
I love campaigning like this because anything can happen. Any character can die. Nothing is safe in the campaign and one mistake can be costly.
-
If things are going to happen a certain way--no matter what--that's not a game: that's a book or a movie.
Well, I can see the sense in making a distinction between "setting events" that are going to happen regardless and "scenario events" that whether they happen depends on what the players do. And even some few that are borderline between the two.
As examples, by the local method of measuring dates, the volcano Mt. Morris will erupt on August 16th, 1458. The game begins 150 miles southeast of there in a small town on January 1st, 1458, and the most likely scenario will take the party to a spot 50 miles northeast of Mt. Morris.
The eruption of Mt. Morris is a "setting event". Yes, it's barely possible that powerful enough magic will prevent the eruption, but only if the players find out it's going to and have such magic available. I think that can be safely counted as "not gonna happen".
The attack by fire giants in the ruins of the town 50 miles NE of Mt. Morris is a "scenario event". If they don't go to the town, it doesn't happen. If they see the scenario unfolding better than the GM expected and enlist the help of some mortal enemy of fire giants (who go and attack them themselves), well technically it still happens, but the players may all be many miles away when it does.
The magical plague that strikes the major trade city is borderline. Unless something happens to prevent it, the evil cleric will drop the plague item into an exotic dancer's tip jar on the night of March 29th, 1458. She's an elf girl, she's unlikely to be affected, but as she walks through the crowded market on her way to get the item identified and appraised, everyone around her will be.
If the players have any dealings with the evil cleric before March 29th, the plague may not happen. If they have any dealings with the exotic dancer, it may not happen on March 29th.
So if they meet the cleric on the road on the 28th and kill him, and then succumb to the plague when rifling through his belongings, "The Great Plague" becomes a couple of dozen people dead a day away from the walls, rather than a couple hundred thousand within the walls. If the elf girl went off with the party and only humans are working the night of the 29th, the evil cleric has no "Typhoid Mary" to walk through a crowded market with no symptoms, yet causing disease in others nearby, so the evil cleric has to choose a new target to get the results he wants. The plague will likely still happen, but not on the night of the 29th.