What Makes an Adventure Really Good?

[aramis]

. For one thing, there is no good reason for the characters to investigate the pyramid in the first place, given that they could (and arguably should) just radio the starport and let them know about it so that they can send a properly equipped team there.

First time a ship comes in view, that excuse dies...
because the "rescue team" gets shot down, too. Had players try that.

 

[E.D.Quibell]

First time a ship comes in view, that excuse dies...
because the "rescue team" gets shot down, too. Had players try that.

As scrabble suggests, they can just ignore the pyramid and jump out system, there is no need for them to land and get shot at.

Regards,

Ewan

 

[scrabble]

First time a ship comes in view, that excuse dies...
because the "rescue team" gets shot down, too. Had players try that.

Even if the starport ship is shot down, why can they not just investigate the pyramid in the same way as the PCs? Why would the starport not send in the marines if the explorers do not return? One really has to contrive a reason for the PCs to investigate it at all (particularly given that they probably have better places to go that will earn them money).

No, like most of the old adventures, the PCs are essentially forced into doing what the plot requires. Just like another one (Bright Face?) when it is assumed from the start that they do not fight the people attacking them and choose to run across half a planet instead, to return something that is of no interest to them at all.

 

[Keklas Rekobah]

... No, like most of the old adventures, the PCs are essentially forced into doing what the plot requires. Just like another one (Bright Face?) when it is assumed from the start that they do not fight the people attacking them and choose to run across half a planet instead, to return something that is of no interest to them at all.

I, for one, would very much like to see a complete example of the kind of adventure that you would design. Have you anything of your own that would clearly demonstrate the principles that you've expressed?

 

[scrabble]

I, for one, would very much like to see a complete example of the kind of adventure that you would design. Have you anything of your own that would clearly demonstrate the principles that you've expressed?

Not that I can present here. Though of the older adventures, Chamax/The Horde was an example of what I would consider a "good adventure". As I said earlier: less random event tables, less railroading, less contrivance, and more coherent (and engaging) plot is what I consider to be elements of a good adventure.

 

[kafka47]

I have no problem with railroading if it is used as a plot device to get things moving along. I think, also a certain amount of railroading adventures have their place in teaching new players/referees how to play the game whereas Sandbox play is more conducive to more mature players. Sometimes, some of the best AD&D adventures could be accused of railroading but really they had a strong exploritory (sp) element to them. What I found lacking in CT adventures was an overall like of structure and the skimiest of backgrounds (Night of Conquest notwithstanding).

So I can hope that Mongoose can find a way of producing both.

 

[robject]

Maybe "Railroading" is getting multiple definitions and shades of meaning here.

If the initial scene of any prepared adventure is called "railroading" then the term has lost its meaning.

Likewise, if there is a final, climactic scene or event, I don't think you can assume a railroad.

Prepared adventures have a minimal, flexible starting point and a goal in mind, even if the referee allows players to not follow through and rather to do something interesting and engaging and creative that they want to do. Sandboxing works when the players are in the groove of the game, and the referee is comfortable with them and the setting, etc etc.

So, Flykiller is wrong when he says an adventure which has a planned climax is a railroaded adventure, unless he just means "this adventure has a planned climax", in which case he's not saying anything at all. A good referee can let players go their own way and still execute mile-markers and/or a showdown.

 

[Keklas Rekobah]

"Know the Climactic Goal" makes more sense than "Know the Ending." I want my players to accomplish something, rather than just have an excuse to grind Cheetos into my carpet.

Along the way, there are major and minor goals to achieve, and these can be played out in any order. Some may not even be necessay to reach the climactic scene.

So it might work for some to follow this general plan:

1. Decide on the Climactic Goal(s) that indicate the end of that particular adventure arc.

2. Determine any number of possible ways to achieve that goal.

3. Introduce any number of possible major goals that collectively provide the means to reach the climactic goal.

4. Introduce any number of minor goals, such as side adventures and 'Red Herrings' to distract the players and provide links to other adventures.

5. Figure out how to present the adventure in such a way that the players actually want to take part.

6. Once play begins, reward the players through their characters for accomplishing each minor, major and climactic goal.

7. Pass the Mountain Dew and keep your hands off my dice ...

 

[scrabble]

I do not mind if players are gently guided in certain plot directions, so long as it is not very obvious. I am however irritated when writers feel that it is necessary to include specific restrictions to prevent players from doing things that they would naturally do (or force them to do things that they naturally would not do). I located some more examples last night:

For example, in one CT adventure (I think it was Annic Nova) it specifically says that players cannot cut into the hull of the ship that they find, in order to force them to find an existing hole or airlock. And the players also have a faulty atmosphere sniffer just so they can catch a disease.

In Shadows, the PCs actually receive dice penalties to their rolls if they split up while exploring the pyramid.

And in Across the Bright Face the players are forced to flee across the planet when they could just hand over what the antagonists want at the start (the players themselves have no interest in the item, since their employer is now dead and they have no reason to care about his interests) and be left alone.

In my opinion, this is bad writing and is unecessarily restrictive.

 

[far-trader]

KR step 7 should be step 1 with "Dr Pepper" as a allowable substitution

But seriously, the key to "What Makes an Adventure Really Good?" is not found in some formulaic approach to writing. It's all about the group. Even the best technically crafted adventure won't survive if the group can't "play" together. And that includes the ref. Likewise a good group can have a ton of fun with even a turkey of an adventure. I know that probably doesn't help much if your goal is to write an adventure but maybe it'll lower your stress level in the attempt.

I don't think I've ever run a prepared adventure without first going over it thoroughly and changing huge swaths of it to remove what were imo gaping plot holes or belief suspender snapping moments. Naturally others might have no problems with the same issues but if I can't accept the adventure as written it would come through in my reffing it...

...ah, one exception does come to mind. I reffed a game for a tourney. That one I had to run by the book, so I approached it that way and istr it going ok. But I expect it could have been better with some tweaks

Key to the above, what I'm trying to say, is the players and the ref have to want to "play" the adventure. That means accepting a degree of railroading. Else why are you all there?

For example: "Shadows". Sure the PCs could just say "That's interesting, some kind of pyramid, hunh." and just keep going and jump out of system. But they (should) have come to "play" the game and when "Shadows" is presented it is the players' responsibility to "play" and say "That's interesting, some kind of pyramid, let's take a closer look..." Coincidentally I was just pretty much rewriting the whole of "Shadows" to better suit my current sensibilities. While I seem to recall running it "as is" originally (back in the dawn of time) when I looked at it again recently I just couldn't accept much of it. It's looking like a totally different adventure now

Likewise "Exit Visa" which I have played, solo more than once, and istr as a player in a group. And reffed once too I think. Fun each time, but you have to "make it so". It'd be boring if you just rolled randomly on the tables and put no life into the trials of getting that Exit Visa. By way of example, the last time I played it solo my ship's Captain fell head over heels (reaction rolls) for one of the clerks (the first iirc) who he invited to dinner in an effort to get next appointment. They had a few more nights out, unrelated to securing the exit visa, got hitched, and with a little between the lines improv on my part, the Captain got his exit visa streamlined via being a local citizenship through marriage and they left together. All that from a little imagination and a couple reaction rolls.

There are no turkey adventures, only uninspired use of materials as presented

 

[robject]

I am however irritated when writers feel that it is necessary to include specific restrictions to prevent players from doing things that they would naturally do [...]

For example, in one CT adventure (I think it was Annic Nova) it specifically says that players cannot cut into the hull of the ship that they find, in order to force them to find an existing hole or airlock. And the players also have a faulty atmosphere sniffer just so they can catch a disease.

Yes, I greatly dislike that. Superthick hulls and faulty atmosphere testers can have a place in a scene, but there are no immovable objects in an adventure. Maybe this is an example of hitting the limits of CT's simple rule mechanics, and fast; early adventures often improvised rules on the spot.

In Shadows, the PCs actually receive dice penalties to their rolls if they split up while exploring the pyramid.

Silly. There are better, more organic ways of "rewarding" players. I'm all for playing up potential dangers, and letting the players call my bluff (or take their chances, or whatever).

And in Across the Bright Face the players are forced to flee across the planet when they could just hand over what the antagonists want at the start (the players themselves have no interest in the item, since their employer is now dead and they have no reason to care about his interests) and be left alone.

That's a good plot point. The players' goal is to get offworld, and complicity is an option that can have interesting, different results: so you'd get two games for the price of one. In fact it wouldn't take much effort to pen a couple pages of scenarios which may result from that very action.

 

[scrabble]

For example: "Shadows". Sure the PCs could just say "That's interesting, some kind of pyramid, hunh." and just keep going and jump out of system. But they (should) have come to "play" the game and when "Shadows" is presented it is the players' responsibility to "play" and say "That's interesting, some kind of pyramid, let's take a closer look..." Coincidentally I was just pretty much rewriting the whole of "Shadows" to better suit my current sensibilities. While I seem to recall running it "as is" originally (back in the dawn of time) when I looked at it again recently I just couldn't accept much of it. It's looking like a totally different adventure now

Of course, but my issue with Shadows is that the reasons for the PCs to be involved are too contrived (they are not even allowed to land back at the starport, again for no good reason).

However, if it was phrased so that they took off from the starport, and were still flying through the atmosphere on their departure vector when they were suddenly shot down by an unknown weapon, and then managed to get the ship safely down near an unknown alien pyramid that they could then investigate... then it would be much less contrived. The reason to investigate would be much more "natural" - see what shot them down, neutralize it so that they can leave safely, and possibly get some spare parts to fix the ship in the process.

 

[far-trader]

Of course, but my issue with Shadows is that the reasons for the PCs to be involved are too contrived...

Agreed At least at this point. Can't recall my feelings when first playing/running it ages ago.

And we're of a like or similar mind on the way to fix it. But I wonder which would feel more "railroaded" to the players?

A: While in orbit you notice a structure through a hole in the clouds. Do you go down for a closer look?

B: While leaving the starport you are shot out of the sky and crash land near a structure. Nobody from the starport saw it though so no rescue is coming. It's too far to walk out to the starport. etc. etc.



In the first (the original) the players have the illusion of choice. Yes or No. Though of course the "game" demands they choose Yes and upon getting closer they are shot down.

In the second (our fix) I can just imagine some players screaming Deux Ex Machina (or whatever the equivalent is for a malevolent version, Lucifer Ex Machina?). "What do you mean we get shot down? Why do we have to fly that way? We were just going straight up to orbit!" etc. etc.

Again I think it comes down to, in both cases, the presentation and the acceptance of being "railroaded" into the adventure, at least a little. As I said, that's why you're all there, might as well play it and have fun

"...hey! Neat. I bet we could plunder that pyramid for some loot. As long as we don't tell the locals! They'd just want a cut or take it all for themselves. They're over the horizon? Good. I say we land and look."

 

[robject]

Again I think it comes down to, in both cases, the presentation and the acceptance of being "railroaded" into the adventure, at least a little. As I said, that's why you're all there, might as well play it and have fun

"...hey! Neat. I bet we could plunder that pyramid for some loot. As long as we don't tell the locals! They'd just want a cut or take it all for themselves. They're over the horizon? Good. I say we land and look."

That's why I think the term "railroad" needs to mean something a little more than, for example, "the referee is handing us an enigma" or "the players will find a Zhodani base and an Ancients' base on Fulacin" (every adventure depends on the players accepting the challenge). But yes, I agree with all 'o that post there.

 

[scrabble]

In the first (the original) the players have the illusion of choice. Yes or No. Though of course the "game" demands they choose Yes and upon getting closer they are shot down.

In the second (our fix) I can just imagine some players screaming Deux Ex Machina (or whatever the equivalent is for a malevolent version, Lucifer Ex Machina?). "What do you mean we get shot down? Why do we have to fly that way? We were just going straight up to orbit!" etc. etc.

In the first, they have free reign but are prevented by writer fiat from making any choices. They can fly off into space and ignore the adventure (but that defeats the point of everyone sitting down and playing the game, unless the GM already has something else in mind for them to do instead), or they can be told what they cannot do (like land again at the starport, or get someone else or some help to investigate it) in order to force them to be at the pyramid.

In the second, their choices are limited naturally by events. They take off, they start to head away from the planet, they are shot down (they could be shot at while in low orbit even), they send mayday messages, they make piloting rolls to reduce the damage from the impact when they crash, and they find themselves near the pyramid from which the energy beam originated.

I think the latter sounds much more natural. The PCs start out as normal, find themselves in a crisis, and the adventure begins. It sounds much more like how an episode of an SF TV show would be set up. The ship crashes, roll opening credits.

 

[Blue Ghost]

What are the ingredients of a "really good" adventure? What proportion of action, background, progression, color, thoughtfulness, and challenge?

Consider that many adventures published for Traveller are considered "really good" by different people; I suspect there may be key elements common to all of them, but to what degree can you rely on these elements to determine that an adventure is "really good"?

What is that most important thing? That the writer be a good writer? That his vision is focused and coherent?

Warning, *RANT MODE ON*

One of the dirty little secrets I have about RPGs is that I prefer CT to all other RPGs. Reason; experience and leveling are absent (save T20).

One of the things I always found aggravating about Dungeons and Dragons, other than its twisting of historic myth into a blended milieu that has no historical basis whatsoever, is the fact that you could "gain experience" so you could play the paper-&-pencil of "Keeping Up with the Jones's". Some of you are familiar with my extreme dislike for the leveling system, well, I'm about to repeat it here.

Trust me, this will lead into what makes a good Adventure.

To me a D&D player, particularly the die-hards, are all about working the game. Gaming the game if you well. To them it's all about "leveling" so they can get the extra HPs and hit bonuses so they can kill the next set of monsters, and so forth, and so forth, and so forth.

Forget plot, forget story, forget objectives, forget trying to solve a puzzle, forget reliving classic legends, or emersing oneself in some imagined and fantastic world with limited technology, and an alleged historic context (tribal Bedouins blazing scimitars across a desert, golems in Germanic lands, Celtic lore with Elfshot cattle and so forth). It's all about rolling the dice, and adding a little scenery to the experience. I mean, heck, to me you might as well be playing pinball (which I enjoy), or playing Yahtzee with a "Lord of the Rings" logo on the die cups and score sheets.

The creatures in the D&D settings are there to replace the old set of creatures so that the players have a new set of "things" to kill. Now, I ask you, is that gaming? To each his own I suppose, but I happen to like the plots that the CT authors and other authors of other addon adventures put into their work.

With Traveller, or a game similar to it in mechanics, there's no adding to your skill, or rather it's a rarity and a sacrifice if you do (i.e. one level goes down so another can go up). Traveller can be as mindless as many a D&D adventure can be, but, for me, it's more about thinking your way through a situation with a team to achieve an objective. It's about experiencing and writing a story with your friends, and then moving onto the next adventure, with the experience itself being the reward.

That's what I want. Like reading a good book or watching a good film, it's the experience itself that should be rewarding.

Example; I've done dozens of adventures from many a game, and the CT adventures weren't always the best, but I remember my gaming experiences with my old Traveller group than any other RPG I've been involved with. "Death Station", "The Chamax Plague", playing the roll of an SAS or Delta Force like team to clear out terrorists in a hotel, hunting for the lost Kinunir Frontier Cruiser, each of those had an experience where we couldn't call upon some magic or rule loophole to pull our bacon out of the fire.

That, versus all the tactical war games I've ever played where some rule loophole soured people's experience, or where some guy brought in a character he'd been developing for years with tons of scrolls and magic items to roast the monsters and other NPCs in a fantasy game.

I think like Black Bat mentioned on another thread, Traveller is a universe that would be a pleasure to live in. We can't, so we imagine adventuring in it. It's become a little more refined and defined over the years for good or ill. But there's no favoritism with some deity to help out your party with some magical pyrotechnics to wipe out that army of goblins marching down on you. There's no "I'm a level 35 VRF Gauss Gunner, with a +5 aimbot prosthetic that'll become a +6 if I can just wipe out 50 more Zhodani/Vargr/Aslan soldiers."

Growing up in the 70s and 80s computers were, to my mind, pretty much no different than today in terms of their pure functionality. To me a faster computer with oodles of RAM and HD space is a glorified 286. But when I used to play and work with 286s and 386s I always got a sense that this was going to be the future. Traveller offered that kind of feeling. And just as my P4 doesn't give me the sense that I've arrived in the future, nor does any other RPG give me a sense of "objective complete".

I did a campaign of Champions with a group, and the game combat was pretty abstract, and the objective (which would prove the basis for the TV show "Heros") had no ultimate story to it. It was almost soap-opera-esque in nature. Kind of like a D&D session turned on its head.

So, what does all this mean? I like good social interaction with the players, and a good story offered by the adventure and Game Master / Referee.

Beating a dead horse here; the the reward is the experience. It's the story. It's the ability to live vicariously and share your imagination with others.

 

[the angle]

One of the dirty little secrets I have about RPGs is that I prefer CT to all other RPGs. Reason; experience and leveling are absent (save T20).

I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment, although my reasons are slightly different (and less strident).

"Leveling up" has its place in a fantasy world, in that myths are filled with larger-than-life heroes who could do things normal people could not, such as, oh, fighting dragons. The way it's handled in many RPGs, however, is with smoke and mirrors. Yes, my character becomes more powerful. All that means in real terms is that the monsters he used to struggle against are now no threat to him whatsoever. In the past, I had +0 to hit and the monsters had AC 13, so I needed to roll 13 or higher to hit them. Now I have +5 to hit and the monsters have AC 18, so I need to roll ... 13 or higher to hit them. In the past, I did 1d6 damage and the monsters had 10 hit points, so I had to hit them three times to kill them. Now I do 2d6 damage and the monsters have 20 hit points, so I need to hit them ... three times to kill them. Nothing has changed except the names of the monsters I'm fighting.

Still, the power of the carrot and the stick is undeniable. Players love that rush of gaining a level -- so much so that in computer gaming, leveling up is the feature which defines a "roleplaying game." It can't be roleplaying because that's not really possible via software, so it defaults to gaining levels, which is nothing more than arithmetic sleight-of-hand.

Steve

 

[Blue Ghost]

I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment, although my reasons are slightly different (and less strident).

"Leveling up" has its place in a fantasy world, in that myths are filled with larger-than-life heroes who could do things normal people could not, such as, oh, fighting dragons. The way it's handled in many RPGs, however, is with smoke and mirrors. Yes, my character becomes more powerful. All that means in real terms is that the monsters he used to struggle against are now no threat to him whatsoever. In the past, I had +0 to hit and the monsters had AC 13, so I needed to roll 13 or higher to hit them. Now I have +5 to hit and the monsters have AC 18, so I need to roll ... 13 or higher to hit them. In the past, I did 1d6 damage and the monsters had 10 hit points, so I had to hit them three times to kill them. Now I do 2d6 damage and the monsters have 20 hit points, so I need to hit them ... three times to kill them. Nothing has changed except the names of the monsters I'm fighting.

Still, the power of the carrot and the stick is undeniable. Players love that rush of gaining a level -- so much so that in computer gaming, leveling up is the feature which defines a "roleplaying game." It can't be roleplaying because that's not really possible via software, so it defaults to gaining levels, which is nothing more than arithmetic sleight-of-hand.

Steve

Yeah, that's kind of why I shied away from a lot of D&D sessions, and I'm not too proud to say it, I somewhat looked down on the fantasy genre for that (and still do). That's not to say that I didn't enjoy my share of D&D sessions, but a lot of the players seemed to miss the actual point of why they were "leveling".

 

[Tellon]

Yeah, that's kind of why I shied away from a lot of D&D sessions, and I'm not too proud to say it, I somewhat looked down on the fantasy genre for that (and still do). That's not to say that I didn't enjoy my share of D&D sessions, but a lot of the players seemed to miss the actual point of why they were "leveling".

AGreed - same here

Which is why the "roll"-playing power-gamers have really wrecked it for "role"-players who are more into thier characters and developing the characters ..

 

[Blue Ghost]

I intellectually understand power leveling, but I still just don't get why people, those who play our kind of games, are suckered into it.

When I read a book I don't read it to see how many pages I can burn through. I read it for the experience of the fiction. That's why I played CT, Ogre/GEV, Car Wars and the like.

I remember some joker on the Starfleetgames BBS saying that he never used SSDs for that game, because the visual aid was a hinderance or something. To me that illustrates a key misunderstanding very akin to power-leveling. The SSD for SFB is there as a visual reference and aid. Without it, or the nomenclature,... why are you playing?

Ditto with any simulation or RPG. If you strip away the story and the textures so you're not distracted as you power-level... why play at all? To me it's akin to cheating.

Okay, okay... rant mode off