"The only problem with the motif idea is most adventures can probably be solved in multiple ways, thus allowing combat or not combat, negotiation or not negotiation, etc. Tough to pigeonhole."
Tom,
Very true. Drop the motif idea, it didn't hold up to any real scrutiny. That usually happens to those 2am ideas!
"It might be easier to have a series of flags for 'suitable for <type> group' entries, with particular flags for: (snip)"
Much better.
"And FT, I will add an author field. Can you think of any multi-part adventures? (other than those from the Digest?)"
Hmmm, CT's TTA for starters. Although knit together by a plot arc, most of the adventures in it can be run independently with little or no trouble. The Keith's 'Sky Raiders' definitely, although a GM getting her hands on all three parts could be problematic. 'Chamax' is a solid two-parter. 'Broadsword' is difficult, can you really run it's scenarios independently? I'd have to guess no. Ditto with MT's 'Flaming Eye' and 'Knightfall'. TNE's 'Path of Tears' is a tough call, it had so much crammed in it but most of the adventures were actually adventure seeds. As wonderful as PoT is, I'd have to leave it off of an adventure table.
Although not part of the table itself, having a very short synopsis of each adventure may be helpful. If a table entry intrigues a GM, he tickles a link (assuming the table is in HTML) and jumps to a 3-4 sentence synopsis. Something like;
Chamax Plague - While in a backwater system, the PCs are asked to first board a runaway ship's launch and then investigate what happened to the launch's mother ship. The job leads them to a barely explored world, a previously unknown and extremely dangerous lifeform, and a group of survivors in need of immediate rescue. Although the adventure does superficially resemble a combat-filled dungeon crawl, a real mystery is presented with both intelligent play and problem solving being richly rewarded.
Sincerely,
Larsen
