Topic: How ICE Should Make Modules

[arcadayn]

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.

[friendlyfungus]

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.

[intothatdarkness]

I guess I never left Old School and didn't realize it...

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.

[Zhaleskra]

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.

[GrumpyOldFart]

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.

 

[Zhaleskra]

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.

[Cory Magel]

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.

[RandalThor]

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 ), with new critters, items, and even character options would make them more marketable.

[GrumpyOldFart]

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? 

[RandalThor]

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.

[Cory Magel]

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.

[GrumpyOldFart]

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? 

[intothatdarkness]

GOF, you've more or less outlined my thought process when it comes to designing a setting/sourcebook.

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).

[frnchqrtr]

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.

[GrumpyOldFart]

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.

 

[markc]

 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

[GrumpyOldFart]

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?

[intothatdarkness]

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.

[smug]

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...

[markc]

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