# Help me make WotC adventures better.



## RodneyThompson (Mar 4, 2010)

Hello there everybody,

In case you don't know me, I'm Rodney Thompson, a D&D developer at Wizards of the Coast. Over the years I've seen WotC adventures take some knocks, to put it mildly. To put it more bluntly, I've seen comments to the effect that WotC adventures are, ahem, the worst. I'm not sure I agree, but there is a perception out there that some WotC-published adventures are sub-par.

I'd like to change that.

I'm making it my mission to change the way we design, develop, and edit adventures. It's not going to be a fast process, or an easy one, but I've formed my task force and have visited the quartermaster for ammunition and supplies. However, like any mission, mine needs some good Intelligence before the work can begin.

So, what I'd like to hear from the community is what you think would make published adventures better. What areas are WotC adventures lacking in that could be improved? What makes a good adventure for you, and why are the published adventures so far not doing that for you?

If you want to just post some thoughts, that's fine by me, and I'll be eager to read them. However, if you REALLY want to be a superstar, when you talk about something that can be improved, give me an example of a WotC adventure that does that thing badly (or not at all), and an example of an adventure that does that well. 

The only other things I ask are this: 1) Be polite and respectful. I am not going to take you seriously if you rant and rave. 2) Avoid hyperbole. If I see the words "epic fail" or "worst adventure ever" there's a good chance I won't take your comments seriously. 3) Don't use this as a soapbox from which to launch complaints about 4th Edition. We're here to talk about adventures, people, not game systems.

So, that's pretty much it. Help me out, would ya?


----------



## Wild Gazebo (Mar 4, 2010)

Sorry, I'm gonna be very general here. I'd like to spitball a theory. 

I think a lot of the work coming out of D&D gets muddled in sub-committee. I think brainstorming and critique are integral parts of a creative process; but, groups usually only come up with a median in terms of quality product: they tend to avoid failure...but never produce greatness. It’s like trying to come up with the best novel in the world by taking a poll of what the best aspects of a novel are: a novel isn't a sum of parts.

So what I would like to see is a return to the swagger. 

Let a few authors flex some muscle. Let several people build shorter more succinct adventures so that a type of 'style of preference' can be branded. Play around a little: look at what Paizo is doing with the yearly contest. Don't be afraid of making something radically different. Don't be afraid of failure. Don't get me wrong, strive for success, but keep the cost down in low page count, low 1st run (if feasible), PDF versions...and then frickin' market it. Market the author!! There is a reason why titles of popular novels have smaller text than the author's name. 

Hope that helps.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 4, 2010)

I going to predict that your post is going to catch a lot of this community off-guard, Rodney.

I haven't spent a lot of time running 4e WotC adventures, though I did plenty in 3.5. I spend a lot of time and effort on converting Paizo adventures to 4e in order to better enjoy them. I appreciate 4e for its mechanics and its engaging, dynamic combat encounters, and I appreciate Paizo for their ability to produce high-quality stories. Fortunately for you, WotC has dominion over the 4th Edition rules set. Paizo, on the other hand, does not have a monopoly on story.

My first suggestion would be to look towards how Paizo writes their adventures. Ignore their combat encounters. You guys are much better at that part than they are; I don't think you're in dire need of improving your ability to design tactical encounters. Paizo spends a lot of time on NPC characterization and background. Now, often I feel they go too far, printing material that would be nearly impossible for the PCs to come across - effectively, writing for the DM and no one else. But there's a happy middle ground there where the DM is given a nice selection of tools with which to make the game world feel more immersive.

What I would really like to see is you hire one of the stronger authors of the Pathfinder AP line, and pair him with your most proficient, most deft encounter designer. Have them collaborate on how to produce the adventure, and have them apply their strengths to the parts they excel at. The adventure writer could have the story plotted out, and then come to your encounter designer and say, "Hey, I've got the PCs walking into a rakshasa ambush - I need a really compelling rakshasa fight." The encounter designer can go over the details of the scene, maybe make a few suggestions on features to add that would make the set piece more interesting, and then pound out a killer combat encounter.

There will be plenty of other people in here with their own suggestions, and they need to be listened to as well, but I think taking a few cues from the guys a lot of the community considers the best adventure publishers in the business is a really solid place to start.


----------



## Stormonu (Mar 4, 2010)

You've set yourself up for quite a tall order from us.

I think a good adventure is like the old statement about porn - "I know it when I see it".  It's hard to put what makes a great adventure into words.  Personally, I don't think WotC did a horrible job back in 3E, so much as it didn't attempt to put it best foot forward in presenting and promoting them.  WotC seemed to make it clear that "adventures weren't their business".  On the other hand, I've only played "Keep on the Shadowfell" for 4E, but that has been enough to turn me away from looking at any other 4E adventures at all.  So I can't really comment on 4E's adventures much themselves.

I can only go by own experiences of what I think is a good adventure.  One of my favorite is the old I6 - Ravenloft.  But I'm not much of a fan of the "Expedition to Castle Ravenloft".  Why?  One of the big reasons was that old Ravenloft felt like a hunt for Strahd.  Somewhere in this mysterious castle Strahd was lurking, luring the PCs slowly to their doom.  You never knew what was around the next corner.  The place felt desolate, off-kilter - a place you couldn't let your guard down in.  There were odd things to encounter, but the focus was on hunting down Strahd and putting an end to him.  

Expedition, on the other had too many encounters.  They distracted from the hunt for Strahd with side encounters that were put too front-and-center.  Every time you threw open a door, you had your weapon at the ready because you knew something was behind it.  A lot of times, it felt gratuitous and forced.  Sometimes an empty room needs to be an empty room.  If the DM running it doesn't agree, he can slap something into it.

Also, another aspect seems to be "everything and the kitchen sink" syndrome.  Occasional, unusual encounters are nice, but often - as in the case of Expedition - too much "cool" is attempted to be interjected into an adventure.  Each new encounter seems to attempt to one-up the last.  Instead, I'd rather see adventures that present a steady diet of lightly themed encounters set at logical story points.  Excessive encounters, or encounters that try to be "cool for cool's sake" need not apply.  Seemingly mundane encounters can produce enough spice simply by having different types of foes than the last encounter and smart use of the surrounding (normal) terrain.  Save the really "wow" encounters for the end of story arc encounters or endboss fights, and say no more than one or two an adventure.

The one thing I would advise is to never lose sight of the fact that modules are essentially canned episodes made to make a DM's life easier.  They should present a themed, consistent story that requires as little beyond the DM doing a read-through to present it (Expedition to the Demonwebs was so convoluted I still don't follow the whole mess, and has given me little incentive to run it).  They also should make a DM feel like it was money well-invested in that it isn't something the DM feels he could have come up with after a few minutes of thinking - the adventure should be inspiring.

Finally, I'll say I find the delve format extremely annoying.  Back in 3E, I bought a lot of Goodman's DCC classics because of their simple-yet-elegant presentation.  I didn't need map reprints of every single room and a full page rehash of every encounter.  Give me some boxed text, an overview of the room and either the stat blocks or where I can find them in the MM, and I'm good.  The delve format is overkill, and in a bad way.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Mar 4, 2010)

I have two requests:

a) ALWAYS include both keyed and unkeyed maps in a proper resolution. Many D&D-gamers are gaming online now (including me), and i need those maps for Maptool. I know you´ve started to do this already, but i want to emphasize how important this is. Maps are only useful if i can print them out or use as a backdrop in Maptool. Overview maps are useless to me, and because you have some awesome mappers they are a waste of talent. 

b) You need more adventures that stray from the beaten path. Just look at fan-favourites, very often they are adventures that try something new. Best example were the Eberron Nicolas Logue modules in Dungeon.

My take: have some "THEME" - slots in Dungeon. Say, forex: "somewhere in the future, we will publish a series of THEME-adventures in Dungeon - get to the keyboards, freelancers and fans."

Possible themes:

Pulp
Noir
Steampunk
Gritty Sword&Sorcery

Your core problem is that most contributors feel too chained to POLand or the campaign settings, and always think about "how do i drop that into X". To get the creative juices flowing, let your contributors be free in flavouring their modules, THEN think about fitting them into existing campaing worlds. I´m a big fan of the current Dungeon, but if you read the older Dungeons, you´ll see that many adventures were primarily influenced by what the author was reading about / researching at the time, and then it was fitted into D&D. This led to some goofy results, but also to a lot of diversity.

Yeah, that´s it. That´s what you need. Diversity.


----------



## Windjammer (Mar 4, 2010)

Hi Rodney (if I may),

For the best in-depth analysis of the faults of a WotC 4E module and how to overcome them I'd like to direct you to this site:

The Alexandrian - Keep on the Shadowfell

The author (Justin Alexander) spent months reworking Keep on the Shadowfell with further people from the WotC forums. I only hit on this recently.

Very helpfully, Justin explains in the first paragraph where he thinks the adventure needed rectification most:



> Giving the adventure a stronger backbone and a richer mythology;       rearranging the setpieces; fleshing out Winterhaven to give it some unique       character and depth; adding extra encounters where possible; and so forth.



Here's a fantastic example of what this means. On the road to Winterhaven (after the first encounter) Justin inserts this bit of read-aloud text:



> _You continue down the King’s Road to Winterhaven. After another mile, you see smoke on the horizon. A little while later you round a corner in the road and look down into a clearing: A small farmhouse has been burnt to the ground, its ruins still sending a trail of smoke into the air._



There. Fill the world with details which are highly relevant to things unfolding in the course of the adventure (here: a village + its surroundings beset by kobolds etc). 

I noticed that the re-edit for H1 when it was released for free online tried some stuff along similar lines (e.g. foreshadowing the BBEG), but really, that's only 5% of what was needed to make the module a more compelling experience beyond the 'learn the ins and outs of 4E's combat system'.
*


But here's the catch:*

WotC writers are now down to a 32 page count writing the new HS modules. What Justin says a module needs cannot go into 32 pages - and certainly not if a module expects to level PCs up at least 2-3 times (meaning, what, 10-20 encounters?).

You want to improve WotC adventures beyond a back-to-back encounter slugfest, I think you'd need to talk to the guys who set these product guidelines first.

Scott mentioned Paizo, so I think it's worth mentioning that 

1. a Paizo module which levels PCs up 2-3 times (a) dishes out story awards liberally and (b) has a page count of 96 pages, resulting in more room to actually provide info surrounding fights the PCs have to go through to level up.

2. when Paizo does a 32-page module (the product line previously called "Gamemastery Modules") they don't go for that 'need to level up the PCs 2-3 times" approach. If they did, they wouldn't have time to write anything but combat encounters as well.

PS. I think you did a *brilliant *job at self-analysis after concluding the 'Dawn of Defiance' module series for Saga.


----------



## Mentat55 (Mar 4, 2010)

It's nice to see you coming here, speaking frankly about this subject, and asking for input.

A few things pop to mind:

1. Reduce the number of combat encounters.  Take the remaining encounters and make most of them large, adventure-critical events.  Go for level +3 to level +5 encounters.  Spread it out over an interesting area.  Make the battles multi-stage; have waves of enemies.  For the remaining encounters, make the setup interesting or unusual, but make them a pushover, so they are completed quickly and make the PCs feel awesome.

2. Add a bit more "empty space" into dungeons and encounter areas.  A few things to look at, doesn't even need any creatures to interact with, necessarily.  The pantry filled with disgusting goblin snacks may not serve much purpose, but it adds atmosphere and maybe makes the PCs hate the goblins that much more.  Or the storeroom containing an obviously stolen bottle of eladrin wine.  Some PCs will sell it; others will ask, "What is the story behind it?"  If the DM wants, this can become a hook for something else -- if not, it is an easy detail to gloss over.

3. Explore different types of adventures.  With the Dungeon e-zine, you can kind of probe the community, trying very different themes, settings, and approaches, and see what works, what doesn't.  Then use that feedback when you are preparing the print published adventures.  

4. Keeping asking the community for help.  EN World has no shortage of great ideas, or people willing to expound upon them 

I also echo the sentiments of the previous posters.


----------



## Windjammer (Mar 4, 2010)

Stormonu said:


> Finally, I'll say I find the delve format extremely annoying.  Back in 3E, I bought a lot of Goodman's DCC classics because of their simple-yet-elegant presentation.  I didn't need map reprints of every single room and a full page rehash of every encounter.  Give me some boxed text, an overview of the room and either the stat blocks or where I can find them in the MM, and I'm good.  The delve format is overkill, and in a bad way.




That's a topic worth discussing in its own take. I'd recommend Rodney to (re)read this thread, if he's interested.

Personally, I don't think WotC will give up the delve format. As it is, this is their way to save money otherwise spent on costly *art order* for modules (ask Paizo what eats up their money!). They order a map once, and then reprint bits thereof throughout the module. It's like the 4E FR Player's Guide - they asked a guy to paint a world map, paid him for the job, and then re-used that very same art piece for 30+ odd partial reprints in the book. Instead of spending money on actual art, *actual illustrations of NPCs* etc., all the stuff that Paizo spends money on.

Which gets us back to the point I already raised. I simply don't think WotC is willing to put money into modules, and it shows. And it will continue to show unless WotC is willing to alter that. Which is why I think Rodney is asking the wrong question to the wrong people.

PS. Out of fairness, I'd like to highlight the fact that the stunning cartography and art for _Draconomicon 2_ absolutely floored me. That's a good indicator of what WotC is capable of when they _do _put money into a product.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 4, 2010)

A few thoughts, hopefully good for adventures for any edition:

1. Make the adventure itself the star.  Don't worry about showcasing the neat new developments (Keep on the Shadowfell was bad for this in 4e, Sunless Citadel ditto in 3e) but instead just come up with a cracking good adventure and let the new developments showcase themselves (Forge of Fury in 3e was quite good in this regard).  One test for any new adventure might be to convert and playtest it in each of the other editions...if it plays well in all of them, then it's probably a good adventure.

2. Make sure the adventure stands alone.  Many (if not most) DMs are not necessarily going to run your adventures one after the other in the order written, but instead are going to drop 'em into their campaign where it makes sense to do so.  The less your adventure depends on outside story or other adventures, the more chance it has of being played.

In 3e, Forge of Fury again was good for this.  In 4e, while I converted KotS to 1e and ran it I did not do the same for H2, as it seemed on reading to be much more dependent on having previously played KotS than I was looking for.

3. Layout, layout, layout.  Take lessons from 1e in how to lay out an adventure.  Put the overall map on a detachable or separate piece of card stock heavy enough to stand on its own and thus pull double duty as a DM screen.  Don't get stuck on one page-spread per encounter - some take more to describe fully, some take less; and you can save lots of space by leaving the map out of the encounter description and putting all the detail in the overall map instead.  Write in point form if you have to - the information is more important than the syntax - and you don't need 16-point or 20-point headers for "Tactics", "Treasure", etc. in every write-up; simple bolding or use of a different colour will do and this'll save a bunch more space.

4. Think like a character, and write accordingly.  An example of the sort of thing I'd like to see done better is the last encounter area in Keep on the Shadowfell - the area and opponents are written up well enough (well, except for Kalarel's magic items, but that's not my point here) but after Kalarel dies the DM is given no help at all in the "what comes next" department.  The module seems to expect the PCs to simply leave after slaying Kalarel, but most inquisitive PCs aren't going to settle for that; they're going to start poking around, and the DM is left hanging.  For example, how can the PCs close the gate?  Or conversely, how can they finish opening it?  And in both cases, if not, why not?  What are the basic stats of the Thing in case the PCs decide to start shooting at it, like mine did?  And so on.

Either that, or at least put a note in the room's write-up stating that it is left up to the DM to sort these things out as s-he sees fit, so the DM has some warning and guidance.

5. Try to avoid battlemat-style maps unless it's all open and visible terrain.  While the battlemats are great for minis combat and are far more colourful and detailed than any map I'll ever draw on a chalkboard, they inevitably end up giving away more information to the players than their characters would know...and players sometimes forget this and use said extra information to their advantage.

6. In a standard dungeon-style adventure, terconnect the levels and sections more.  This allows for an adventure to play differently on repeated use, as the party has more choice in which ways to go and thus might not encounter obstacles and opposition in any predictable order.  KotS, for example, has only one possible entrance and only one possible way to get from level 1 down to level 2.  A second (secret) entrance from the outdoors and about 3 more connections (stairways, elevators, hidden shafts leading to trap doors, whatever) between levels 1 and 2 would do wonders here!  And in a dungeon with more than two underground levels, make sure there's always one staircase that bypasses a level completely. (thus, if there's 4 levels and you enter on level 2, there's at least 2 connections* between each neighbouring pair of levels, along with a set of stairs that goes straight from level 1 to level 3 (with no exit to 2) and maybe another that goes from 2 to 4)

I can't think offhand of a published adventure that does this really well.

* - then make sure the opposition uses these connections to their advantage! 

Hope this helps! 

Lan-"and release the converted version for each edition, too"-efan


----------



## Dannager (Mar 4, 2010)

Windjammer said:


> Scott mentioned Paizo, so I think it's worth mentioning that
> 
> 1. a Paizo module which levels PCs up 2-3 times (a) dishes out story awards liberally and (b) has a page count of 96 pages, resulting in more room to actually provide info surrounding fights the PCs have to go through to level up.
> 
> 2. when Paizo does a 32-page module (the product line previously called "Gamemastery Modules") they don't go for that 'need to level up the PCs 2-3 times" approach. If they did, they wouldn't have time to write anything but combat encounters as well.



This is a very valid point; background and story details take up space. I don't want to see less space dedicated to combat encounters, though. The strength of 4e's conflict mechanics is one of the reasons I'm such a fan. This is a real dilemma. Increasing the page count of your print products might not be feasible, and if that's the case you need to do some really difficult prioritizing. Non-print products are another matter entirely. I costs almost nothing for you to add more pages of content to a Dungeon magazine adventure - a few extra dollars to your freelance author and a bit of bandwidth. There is nothing preventing you from publishing incredible adventures that cover everything your average D&D player is looking for online.

In fact, better yet, do what you must with your print product adventures, and then publish extensive digital supplements to the product through DDI. Not only can this help you fill perceived gaps in the itches your community is looking to scratch, but it's yet another draw to the subscription service. Publish NPC backgrounds online, extra non-combat locations (in towns and such), extra novel treasures for the party to come across, etc. You have this really amazing tool for delivering whatever content you want to a huge fraction of your fan base. Leverage it every single opportunity you get.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 4, 2010)

Windjammer said:


> Personally, I don't think WotC will give up the delve format.



I sure hope they don't. The delve format made running some of the later 3.5 adventures much easier on me as a DM. Not having to flip pages or refer to multiple books to run one encounter is a godsend. I don't want to go back to those barbarian days.


----------



## Windjammer (Mar 4, 2010)

Dannager said:


> I sure hope they don't. The delve format made running some of the later 3.5 adventures much easier on me as a DM. Not having to flip pages or refer to multiple books to run one encounter is a godsend. I don't want to go back to those barbarian days.




You recall Red Hand of Doom. It provided the stat blocks in a 'Delve Style' as a free web enhancement, so that the authors could utilize the printed product space to provide a compelling module. 

Then Keep on the Shadowfell came along and _reversed _this, by essentially giving us $30 worth of stat blocks, with more meat for the actual adventure provided as a web enhancement (on DDI / Dungeon magazine).

I'm curious to see how the customer base would react if WotC did this again, except at a stage where these web enhancements are behind a pay-only subscription wall. 

I mean, this is exactly what you're suggesting, and to me it sounds like the safe road to marginalize the market for published modules even further.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 4, 2010)

Windjammer said:


> You recall Red Hand of Doom. It provided the stat blocks in a 'Delve Style' as a free web enhancement, so that the authors could utilize the printed product space to provide a compelling module.
> 
> Then Keep on the Shadowfell came along and _reversed _this, by essentially giving us $30 worth of stat blocks, with more meat for the actual adventure on DDI (Dungeon magazine).
> 
> I'm curious to see how the customer base would react if WotC did this again, except at a stage where DDI is behind a pay-only subscription wall. I mean, this is exactly what you're suggesting, and to me it sounds like the safe promise to marginalize the market for published modules even further.



The adventure should stand on its own as a solid adventure, even without DDI content - that's a given. Most DMs probably won't even look to DDI to add something to their canned adventure. But I also believe that the DMs who perceive something lacking are also the sorts of people who would take advantage of something offered to them online to remedy what they see as a problem. DDI is such a robust set of tools that the decision to subscribe is not a difficult one (at least, not for the DMs I know). Or perhaps offer the supplements as a series, to run alongside the published adventures. Make the first digital supplement free, and make it clear that the following supplements will require a subscription, and if you like the first one enough you ought to subscribe to get the others.


----------



## wedgeski (Mar 4, 2010)

I'm very pleased that you have posted such a frank invitation, Rodney. I guess this is what "social networking" actually meant.


----------



## Rechan (Mar 4, 2010)

I'm going to just stick to using modules H1-3, P1 & 3, the Scepter Tower of Spellguard, and the Scales of War AP (because I'm familiar with those). As far as I'm concerned, those are where WotC is putting its Publishing on the line; everything else in Dungeon is under the radar/less casual, I haven't read every adventure that's been out, and I think the Published official modules are the most important here. So the following post contains spoilers. 

Published adventures seem to be the gateway here. It lets people get a handle for the system (as well as a taste), and if the delivery (the adventure) doesn't taste good, the system likely isn't going to either. And it leaves a bad meal for those who use adventures 90+% of the time (a recent poll here, the majority was split between little to no adventures, or almost exclusively published adventures). 

So here's the problem areas _I_ feel exist with the modules. Bare in mind that these flaws I think exist in many modules, not just WotC's, and are colored by what I _want_ to see in addition to what I just _don't_ see. I see three areas that need the most work. I'll break this into three posts.

Plot

*1: The Villain in the Story*

The villain's plot is not compelling. Typically, the plot consists of "There's bad stuff going on over here, and there's a guy behind it all. This isn't related to you in any way. He's at the bottom of the dungeon. You hear his name dropped once or twice, or read a letter(!) or get asked to just go deal with him."

In KotS, Pyramid of Shadows, and in P3, the villain Sits in his Room and is only tangentally related to the PCs; they get there and face him at the end. Until this point, he really isn't present at all. The PCs never interact with him, see him, or see what he has done in general (making lots of undead/stealing souls), but not experiencing the loss, or seeing the damage he has wrot. Thus the villains are not compelling, interesting, or personal. He isn't an _antagonist_, he's just the final speedbump. An antagonist needs to _antagonize_.

To some respect, this made me really enjoy Trollhaunt, because it meant that the PCs interact with Skalmad _thrice_. It really let them build a relationship with him, if at least it was "You're going to get it now!" But more on Skalmad later. 

Granted, you're making an adventure generic enough to suit even a homebrew game and any general party. It's hard to make it relevant to any character, and tailoring to the PCs is the DM's job. But the PCs need to put a face to this guy. They need to hate him, they need to _want_ to stop him. Let them _see_ him do bad things. Let them know "Oh, it's the work of THIS guy? Oh it's on now." Do that, and you have a memorable villain. 

*2. The Villain's Goals*

As stated before, the plot isn't compelling. "Go here to kill this guy in order to stop whatever he's doing." 

That _works_. It's traditional. And really, there's nothing wrong with simple and straight forward. But a published adventure should be a cut above the average adventure. 

There needs to be more to it than just "Putting your sword in him pulls the plug". The plot needs _more_ than "it was going smoothly until the adventurers walked into my inner sanctum". A recent post on Sly Flourish[/b] addressed this issue at length: The villain needs quests. This gives the feeling that the world is alive, gives the PCs something to go after, and give them a sense of time crunch.

Hell, perhaps even the villain's Plan is all ready in motion, and fighting the villain is almost secondary; when someone pushes a boulder down a hill, it's the rolling boulder that's the real thing to address, not the guy who pushed it. Stop the _boulder first_.


----------



## fba827 (Mar 4, 2010)

All this goes with the disclaimer of "for my preferences" -- obviously, I am not your sole customer and, frankly, things that I like may well be disliked by the majority at large.  But here is food for thought since you're asking 

Consecutive Pages
I'll start with a favorite thing that WotC -is- doing well.  The recent trend in layout has been to have all info for a given encounter on 2 page, or at least on consecutive pages for the longer ones.  I don't like flipping to multiple books or an index. I love the fact that it is all right there with minimal flipping. I'd be sad if this format went away.


Shorter but more frequent descriptive text
The block of text for DMs to read aloud - After a sentence or two, players often zone out.  But at the same time, they are great ways to fill in flavor and atmosphere.   So perhaps keep them on the short side but possibly peppered in more often?


Plot Hook Variety:
For longer modules, I'd like to see more variety in plot hooks.  This is a tricky one since you can not make a plot hook for the millions of self-evolving campaign worlds and PCs out there.  But (generally speaking) the existing plot hooks often boil down to a) "the default: you answer a letter for help" b) "the friend who some PC knows from his past is in trouble and needs help" and c) "you hear of treasure/monster/dungeon of legend and want to see/tame/explore it for yourself"

And, yes, these make good stand by hooks.  But sometimes it's hard to know how far you can stray from the given plot hooks to make it more personalized to your own campaign.  I am not sure what to suggest here since potential plot hooks vary by plot, but my main point here is that some additional variety to help make it easier for a DM to personalize a plot hook to the party... and for these longer adventures, you want/need a stronger buy-in from the PCs rather than just because the player controlling the PC says so.


Nonlinear:
Linear adventures are easier to write, I get that. They are also easier for a DM to follow, I get that too.  But when playing, the path sometimes feels very constricting to the point of making me (as a player) feel powerless in choice;'why bother making a decision, just follow the trail without pause"   Yes, dungeons are often linear by architectural design.  But when outside the dungeon, often is the case that the NPCs will just keep pointing you back to the linear path even if you wanted to try and do something different.


Location, Location, Location...
Every low level adventure seems to center around going in to ruins as the dungeon. I like ruin-style dungeons (they offer great places to stick in history and lore along the way), but I'd also like it if some more adventures that did not center around a ruin-based dungeon crawl (but above ground temples, castles, wilderness, taverns, etc that as the 'dungeon' is fine.. just something to offer variety!)


Interesting encounter features
Even if I don't use the encounter as scripted, there should be potential to take a great location or terrain feature for my own encounter.  In general, this is something WotC adventures (that i've seen) often try to do, at least for the climactic encounters. And more often than not, WotC does this well.


Encounter Mix
I know this is somewhat of a silly thing to say since it is also in the DMG, but for newbie DMs, and for DMs that are not used to running modules, a small sidebar at the start that reminds DMs to consider changing the enemy mix if their party lacks some particular role. I.e. "If the party doesn't have many strikers, consider replacing 1 orc brute with 4 orc minions in encounters 2, 5, and 8. Or consider reducing John Doe's HP by 10 in encounter 13. Refer to the DMG for other ideas if the party lacks a particular role"

Obviously, this one just refers to your big adventure modules, it's not a practical suggestion for the short Dungeon Magazine adventures.


Fewer Combat Slogs
There have been some adventures where the pacing seems off, they seem to be combat after combat after combat.  So some places to stick in NPC interaction and/or noncombat encounters, along with appropriate prompts to help DMs who are not used to doing NPC conversations.


player-ready visuals
These can be handouts or even just a page with a blank&white map or color illustration, but something that the players can see to give them a sense of mood/theme/etc.  i mention this because sometimes when there is an image, or map that i would want to show to give a sense of what a corridor might look like or how the castle is so elaborately decorated, it often has DM-secrets showing on it too.

Story
A story that makes me as a player want to keep my PC invested (this goes partially with making good hooks, but also with how the story plays out).




Obviously, there is the struggle between space availability and necessity

You'll notice the general theme in several of my above suggestions are ways to increase feel/immersion for the players.


(I'm tired, so apologies for having scattered thoughts.  I may think of more stuff later, but that's it from my sleep-deprived brain at the moment  )


PS. I would not kick yourselves too hard over your initial assertion.  I do not think WotC is overall any better or worse than other publishers when it comes to modules.  You have some that work out well in execution, and some that don't, just like everyone else.  It's just that it is from you (WotC) that it gets the most attention, table-play, and scrutiny.


----------



## Whisper72 (Mar 4, 2010)

Well, on the whole size/number of encounter issues, what is the problem with 16 or 32 page adventures that level up only once, or maybe even do not provide enough XP to level up at all?

Design adventures based on average playtime for ONE session. Which can be played in about 3 hours and are versatile in terms of setting that DM's can drop them anywhere. With the whole POL concept, this should be easy as there are plenty 'black spots' on the world map where anything can be found.

Also on the issue of diverging from the 'normal' or 'standard' fare. In the old days, one of the better remembered adventures are those featuring a crashed space ship (expedition...). Take a cue from the lists / discussions on this board some time back on which were the all-time best adventures, look at some old-school adventures that somehow get rave reviews and have 'good memories' attached and dissect them.

what dit these adventures provide in terms of story, memorable encounters, strange monsters, new magic items etc. etc.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 4, 2010)

Whisper72 said:


> Well, on the whole size/number of encounter issues, what is the problem with 16 or 32 page adventures that level up only once, or maybe even do not provide enough XP to level up at all?



You don't want your customers to feel they're not getting enough bang for their buck. A lot of the people who buy published adventures are doing so because it's easier than making their own. If every level of adventuring costs them a $15 published module, they're going to be dropping $450 on an entire 1-30 campaign. That's a steep price to pay. It's much easier to swallow in the more reasonable 9-adventure format seen in the H-P-E series.


----------



## Nightson (Mar 4, 2010)

1.  There's too much combat.  Now that's not really your fault, it's based on the assumptions of the system.  4e combat just isn't fast for our group, a decent sized encounter takes time, having the full 13 combat encounters to level up would slow leveling down to an unacceptable pace.  

Well, can't I just ignore the combat?  Sometimes.  But plenty of times removing encounters requires plenty of reworking, sometimes when you strip out the encounters, there isn't much of interest left.

2.  Adventure Paths.  They just seriously decrease the utility of the adventures to me.  And it seems like the suck up all the energy from the rest of the adventures.  I'd be a lot more interested in tier length paths, and way more interested in three to five level adventure paths.

3.  This is sort of vague, and this should be waited third.  I feel like there's not a huge range of flavor in the adventures.  

4.  It's not that you don't produce interesting locations and NPCs, but sometimes it doesn't seem like enough.

So, there's my criticism since you asked for it.  But I do feel the quality of Dungeon Magazine to be pretty alright.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 4, 2010)

Dannager said:


> The adventure should stand on its own as a solid adventure, even without DDI content - that's a given.



Agreed, except... 







> But I also believe that the DMs who perceive something lacking are also the sorts of people who would take advantage of something offered to them online to remedy what they see as a problem.



If the adventure stands on its own as a solid adventure there shouldn't *be* anything lacking.

Lanefan


----------



## Dannager (Mar 4, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Agreed, except... If the adventure stands on its own as a solid adventure there shouldn't *be* anything lacking.



We're talking about different things here. A lot of people won't perceive anything lacking with the published adventure. There will be some people who will perceive something lacking. The latter sort of person strikes me as being more likely to want "more" from their game than your average D&D player, and that probably translates into a greater willingness to do things like go online to find more material for it. Slap a notice in the published adventure somewhere that DMs looking for additional story ideas, NPC background tidbits, bonus magic items, high-resolution maps, and so on can go to the WotC website and purchase a DDI subscription (or maybe access the first adventure's material for free).


----------



## Whisper72 (Mar 4, 2010)

Dannager said:


> You don't want your customers to feel they're not getting enough bang for their buck. A lot of the people who buy published adventures are doing so because it's easier than making their own. If every level of adventuring costs them a $15 published module, they're going to be dropping $450 on an entire 1-30 campaign. That's a steep price to pay. It's much easier to swallow in the more reasonable 9-adventure format seen in the H-P-E series.




I understand your point. Howere there are two things here, first is to make the mod cheaper, the other is, do both, have the larger adventures for those who want them en series of smaller ones for those who want those. The market is too fragmented / there are too many different types of DM to serve them all with one type of adventure. Look at what Paizo is doing. There are large AP's there are the seperate larger modules there are smaller modules. for everyone there is something there...


----------



## Dannager (Mar 4, 2010)

Whisper72 said:


> I understand your point. Howere there are two things here, first is to make the mod cheaper, the other is, do both, have the larger adventures for those who want them en series of smaller ones for those who want those. The market is too fragmented / there are too many different types of DM to serve them all with one type of adventure. Look at what Paizo is doing. There are large AP's there are the seperate larger modules there are smaller modules. for everyone there is something there...



Paizo has a different model than WotC. They are able to sustain their larger adventures through a guaranteed revenue stream they derive from their subscription plans. WotC, on the other hand, has DDI. These are two different beasts, and they don't necessarily allow for the same product strategies.

That said, WotC already publishes the range of adventure lengths you describe. They have put out 2-3 level adventures like the H-P-E series, much smaller adventures through DDI, and much larger adventures in the form of products like Revenge of the Giants (and the upcoming Tomb of Horrors super adventure).


----------



## Kzach (Mar 4, 2010)

I haven't read through this thread yet so I'm probably going to be echoing a lot of other people's comments.

Firstly, I think the module _design_ is fairly decent, not great, but passable. The problem isn't necessarily the design, it's the blandness.

The modules put out and the Adventure Paths feel entirely disconnected. There is no feeling of continuity or story. I've played through Keep on the Shadowfell four times with four different groups, and each time despite a DM trying to 'own' it, the module felt... staged.

I've played through the first 6-8 levels of Scales of War in two different groups and again, nothing felt connected. It felt like a series of planned encounters that had little to nothing to do with each other. The encounters themselves weren't necessarily bad (more on that later), but I felt absolutely no connection to any plot whatsoever.

I've played through the first four levels of Chaos Scar in one group and again, it was just a series of disconnected combat scenarios that had virtually nothing linking them aside from some esoteric concept of some mystical meteor. It was a McGuffin that quite frankly didn't interest anyone in the group.

I'm not sure what goes on in the process of adventure path or module design, but I get the feeling that there are far too many cooks in the kitchen. It feels like every scenario has been designed by someone different, and so there's no real common thread to connect them all.

The thread needs to be powerful. It needs to motivate the _players_ as much as the PC's. Taking a cue from War of the Burning Sky, part of what got me interested in it as a DM was that it had such an awesome hook and a very powerful thread running through it that I felt would capture the player's imaginations and have them be engaged by it.

WotBS has it's faults, I wouldn't call it a perfect example of a campaign or even of module design, however I can forgive a lot of it's shortcomings simply because it has such an awesome story behind it. I as a DM feel excited about running it every session because every session moves the plot forward in interesting and engaging ways. I've never felt that way about any of the 4e WotC modules or adventure paths.

The primary purpose behind a campaign should be to engage the players in the story of it. You have to engender a feeling of being part of something grand and magnificent and to make the characters a part of that rather than being on the sidelines. In this, I feel WotBS has succeeded where the WotC equivalents have failed.


----------



## Kzach (Mar 4, 2010)

On the matter of combat encounters, there are some very interesting scenarios in the AP's and modules. But again, they're interesting solely to be interesting, rather than being an organic part of the campaign. They stand out as being disconnected from the whole and very much, "Look what we did here, isn't this cool?!" Yes, it's cool, but it's also in isolation from everything else, so it really loses it's appeal when the players walk into a mushroom cavern with a bridge over it and have absolutely no reason to engage the mushroom creatures.

Why were the mushroom creatures there? What was their purpose aside from making falling off the ledge more dangerous? The PC's have no reason to interact with them, so an interesting encounter is turned into a boring one since the PC's just walk over the bridge and ignore them.

I could say that about a lot of the encounters. They're interesting to be interesting, rather than being interesting because they're a part of something that pushes the plot forward in any way, shape, or form. If the PC's have no reason to react or interact with all these 'interesting' elements, then they're pointless additions. Instead of deleting them, however, they should be included as a part of the plot.

A good for instance is an encounter in War of the Burning Sky, The Scouring of Gate Pass. Spoiler warning for anyone playing in it 

In this encounter, the PC's have been harassed at every turn and are inches away from getting out of the city after three gruelling days of trials and tribulations. They're disguised as city guards and being accompanied by a city guard captain and eight city guards who are trying to sneak them out of the city before the Inquisitors arrive. A bunch of pillagers make a ruckus up ahead and the captain splits his eight guards into two groups and they run off after the thieves with the captain telling the group to stay put.

Now the group hear some noises and shouts for help and see magical lights coming from a magic shop. People in the street are noticing and calling for the 'guards' to do something. Now the PC's are put on the spot. All of a sudden the players are put into a situation where they could lose their one chance to escape the city if they're exposed as false guards.

Immediately this situation is exciting, interesting and engaging. It's not just another encounter in a string of encounters. It's forcing the players to make decisions.

On top of that, once they engage the thieves in the shop, they realise that the leader is a friend of a friend who helped them out earlier. Now what do they do? If they kill him, they'll make an enemy out of a former ally. If they let him go, the crowd will see through their disguise, or call real guards to deal with the problem.

This just upped the ante and made the entire encounter wholly relevant to everything that had happened before and forced the players to deal with the consequences of their actions. It's not just a random encounter, it moves the story forward in an interesting and engaging manner that will have future ramifications and an immediate impact on the story. I've never felt that with any of the AP's or modules.


----------



## Rechan (Mar 4, 2010)

*Adventure and Encounter Structure*

*1. Thinking outside the box.*

I understand, again, general is often important because you want it to apply to the most tables as possible. But generality, and traditional, can really make it bland. So, again, start it fresh. Recreating the wheel is not what I mean, but merely putting a shiny hubcap on it. 

Use some of the advice from the DMG2. Start it with a Vignette. *Start* it with the PCs _dieing_, and being resurrected. Start it with something interesting.

One of my favorite adventures is "Three Days to Kill", a 3.0 adventure. The premise is really simple: the PCs are hired by one group of bandits to disrupt a meeting between another bandit group and a cult. This meeting would disrupt the balance of the various bandit bands by giving one more power and - it really doesn't matter to the PCs, because it's a simple odd job. The PCs can deal with the situation in any fashion they want, at any time they want, so they are free to formulate their own plan.

I'll touch on that fact later, but simply put it's a _different kind of adventure_. Not only are the PCs not Fighting The Good Fight, but they're in a gray area and they're doing something small that will possibly have ramifications if they care about it (hey, it addresses cultists and doesn't give these bandits too much power; highwaymen with infernal backing could be much worse).  

Paizo does this with the start of each adventure Path, by getting the players to all buy into one concept that's important for most of the whole adventure. "You all are hired to work at a casino" "You all are guards on a caravan" "You all are part of this little community". It does hurt generality, but it makes up for it in _unity_ and tieing the PCs strongly to the plot, as well as strongly to one another, _and_ serves the purpose of being more than "I'm an adventurer and I'm off on an adventure".

Don't be afraid to try something different. 

*2. Adventure Structure: Think Outside the Dungeon*

I know it's called "DUNGEONS and Dragons", but every adventure doesn't need to be "fight your way through double digits worth of rooms to fight the guy at the end". 

This goes back to plot, but it's also just related to the adventure structure. Return to Castle Ravenloft did some really good things here: A) It put the PCs in the middle of two villains. They had to decide who to oppose (and thus who to side with), but ALSO, B) the PCs could go about destroying shrines/sites of power. Doing so weakened one of the villains. This was completely outside of the Dungeon, but had relevance to both the plot, and the mechanics. 

It gave the players Plot Options. Just like "Three Days to Kill" was very open ended, the players could debate on those choices. The DMG2 talks about offering players meaningful choices, and even something as simple as "Right or left" needs to have some baring on relevance (Right goes into the Volcano of Burning, and Left goes into the Swamp of Despair, but either will get us to the other side). 

So an adventure that is built like a flow chart would be much better than an adventure that is "Grind through these rooms til you get to the end." 

*3. When In the Dungeon, Don't Torture Variety*

One of my biggest beefs with WotC's modules is the _monster monotony_. In KotS, you have:

4 consecutive combats with kobolds
4 consecutive combats with goblins.
3 consecutive combats with hobgoblins.

In Thunderspire Mountain, you had the same thing happening in the Duergar area. Wall To Wall Duergar with little variation. Scepter Tower of Spellguard was no different; constant undead in the lower levels, constant dark creepers/spiders in the upper levels.

_If I'm going to fight the same type of enemy multiple times, each encounter better be different_. The biggest sin (imo) was that in KotS, encounter 1 and 2 are _not different![/b]. The only difference is that the 2nd has kobold skirmishers. They are on the *same map* for Thor's sake! 

More importantly, instead of fighting the same monsters consecutively, at least toss in different encounters between them. The Interludes were a good attempt, but PCs jumped by kobolds (twice) weren't going to pull away and go to the Camp site. I also had a hard time giving PCs a reason to go back to town for the second interlude - they wanted to stay in the dungeon and slog through it, resting just outside/in cleared areas instead of returning for any reason. So *back up your interludes with incentives to have them*. 

Pyramid of Shadows and the Well of Demons in Thunderspire Labyrinth are *great* examples of mixing up monsters/encounters. Now, Pyramid of Shadows has its issues (I'll get to later), but man, every room (except for the plant guys) is different! Vastly different! It's got variety in spades, I'll give it that! I also *absolutely adore* H2's the Well of Demons. Every room, while thematically, and plot-wise, are linked, each room is vastly different and offers different issues. It's a great thing, that you could rip out and drop into any adventure as a cool and intriguing site. Trollhaunt was also awesome here - sure, you fought those damn trolls many times, but they were paired different things each time. 

I love monsters. And I love using them. So the monotony issue is big for me. I had to go back and re-populate those encounters with non-goblin, non-kobold, non-hobgoblin helper monsters (drakes, giant bugs, traps etc) just each encounter stood out from "just another fight with goblins". 

*4. Dungeons Shouldn't Torture Players*

This goes back a little to point 3, but simply put, the dungeons in the majority of the modules are too long. Pyramid of Shadows locked people in a dungeon for *3 levels*! Even if it's variety, the PCs just can't roam, can't go get a beer at a tavern, buy/sell equpment, can't do anything but move forwards!. Scepter Tower of Spellguard was nothing but a dungeon crawl. Same with P3. The players should not feel like the seasons changed between going in and coming out of teh dungeon, because they have spent so many sessions in there. This is I believe the biggest sin of the SoW aside from plot linkage (see next post).

This is one thing that made the non-Duergar areas of H2 very enjoyable. They were, if nothing else, short.

My personal rule of thumb is that a dungeon's welcome has been overstayed after the 6th encounter. 

On the topic of monotony and encounters, I loved Trollhaunt. The various random encounter suggestions, the encounter ideas for exploring the Feywild, I loved those. They were rife for ideas for other products, and again, let you inject it to break up the monotony. It also let you address the issue if your players would prefer to explore, rather than battle. 

I understand that in a module, you are trying to level the PCs up so the encounters later are balanced for the levelled up PCs. Thus, the more encounters they skip, the worse they are. Sure. But, break those encounters up in terms of location, in terms of pacing and in-game time, break them up with other things to do like social encounters and skill challenges. 

*5. Encounter Structure*

Just as I don't want to fight the same monsters consecutively, I also don't want to fight in the same room multiple times. KotS tried to vary it up in the first level of the Keep, but really, there's not a lot of difference from room to room; a little difficult terrain here, maybe a platform there, but not exciting. Use all that fantastic terrain you publish. Put the encounters in exciting locations - logs on a river, a decaying bridge that will fall apart soon, a battle on a tower that's on fire/crumbling beneath you. Paizo had a battle in a tower that was rolling down a cliff into the ocean - it's hard to not sit back and go "Wow". Not to mention the DMG2 and the many fiddly bits - terrain powers, or other interactive material (Mike Mearls posted how he'd improve the Dragon encounter in Kobold Hall; this is an example of interactive terrain/hazards that make a simple slugfest more remarkable).

Beyond the trappings of the area, I again point to DMG2. Use those Encounters as Story, and more importantly, the *Encounter Objectives*. Objective encounters are great, and I want to see examples of them, I want to see them integrated into the story, I want to see them work good. I love them so hard, but I never see them. 

If I don't sit back after an encounter and go "That was different from the lsat two I just had", then I think it's a wasted encounter, in terms of excitement and variability. 

*6. Mixing It Up*

In Trollhaunt, mid-way through going through the Warrens, the PCs encounter a dragon that's willing to parlay. This is great. It's someone to talk to, to get information from, and to possibly NOT FIGHT. KotS tried this with Sir Keegan, but I felt it fell flat. 

Compare this to Pyramid of Shadows. Every Single Guy in there, even if they weren't trying to eat your face, were going to just stab you in the back. There were no friendly NPCs, no "take a breather" zone. I believe very firmly that Pyramid of Shadows would have been much better off had the Pyramid had a shopkeeper in there somewhere, or a *bar*. 

Now, some adventures in Dungeon do mix it up, they toss in skill challenges left and right. But I haven't seen those in the Published adventures._


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 4, 2010)

This is a great idea and I hope you gather a lot of useful information.

Here are my 2 cents: 

One fundamental issue I have with several adventures is that there are too many combat encounters following each others, without any elements that really advance the plot in some way. The only advancement seems to be having one less combat encounter before the conclusion of the adventure, but story-wise, not much happened. 

If you have a more or less defined plot going on like "stop Kalarel from opening the portal to the Shadowfell", the plot should be more involved. There should be more "stages" in the story, more twists, more surprises, more color. Looking at KotS (spoilers to follow)
[sblock]
- The Kobolds are working for Kalarel. Why? Is it just Irontooth? Is there a way to persuade them "rebelling" against him. When I DMed KotS, I probably didn't do enough, but one thing I was using were "cut scenes"-  the PCs getting visions of the past, and seeing how Sir Keegan fought a Dragon (the Dragon buried at the Burial Site), and later offered his Kobold aides survival if they accepted his rule and would never fight against the humans here again. The Kobolds broke this promise. In my game, this was mostly a good justification to bring the full PCs wrath against them, but maybe one could do more with that. 

- The Dragon Burial Site. What was the item that Kalarel was looking for? What did he need it for. How does withholding the item from him change his plans? How does he react to that?

- The Goblin and Hogboblin in the Keep? Could they be in some kind of conflict? Maybe the Goblins have always been there, and now the Hobgoblins are taking over? Bring some politics into it, and give hooks how to use them. Maybe Splug could describe this. He was probably well-liked in his role by many, but maybe he could also advance the plot a little more, like describing the politics of the situation? 

- The Undead. Tie them stronger to the history of the Keep. In my game, the visions described Keegan's "career", starting with his initial fight of the Dragon, over his family moving in with him in the Keep, to his eventual turning and murdering his own family. So some of the undead could be his family or people from the vision. Even if you'd eschew the visions, seing several child skeletons or spirits. "Daddy, why are you looking so angry? Father, what are you doing with the sword! No aaaahh...". This could also make the final meeting with Keegan a lot more tense - how do the PCs react to his fall, after seeing more "personal" consequences of his actions?

- Nianaran. She should take a more active role in the plot. As it is, the Pcs have seen her once, did not make anything of it, and later she attacks them at the cemetery. Her betrayal could be a lot more powerful if the PCs already had a connection with her - for example, she could come to their aid when they are fending off the Kobolds (she only appears when the fight is essentially won), and seems to give useful tips (that only lead them into the Kobold ambush maybe?). 
[/sblock]

Probably at least every 2 encounters something "plotty" or "roleplayingy" should happen. A new information unveiled. A clue found. A betrayal. A misinformation. Meeting an important or useful figure. A decision that has to be made (beyond the usual "turn left or right?" or "extended rest or go on"). A puzzle to be solved. 

If you look at the next adventure, Thunderspire Labrynth: 
[sblock]
Fighting the Blood Reavers (?) in their fortress. What plot advancement is going on there? I see no puzzles, no surprises, no new revelations, except at the end when you are lead by your nose to the next dungeon.
[/sblock]

Or Pyramid of Shadows: 
[sblock]
Essentially, the entire pyramid is a dungeon where you just kill a lot of monsters and occassionally fight a "mini-boss". You _can_ play it differently. You can try to make allies. But it seems every one of them will betray you anyway. Also, the pyramid is way too static. What happens if the PCs attack those plant creatures in one room and then retreat? How do they reinforce their troops? Do they go after the PCs? How?

That's the adventure I am currently running and I am looking forward to coming to its end. The players seem to have fun, but my group is generally not really that story-focused and more "tactical roleplayers". But I am sure they wouldn't mind more story, more "dungeon politics". 
[/sblock]

D&D 4 is great with encounters as set pieces. But there is a danger to make them too static. How do I handle the villains reorganizing their defenses? Monsters from the inner areas might move to the outer areas to intercept the PCs. How can I ensure that these encounters stay interesting if I did that? I can do this mostly on the fly, but it might help if the adventures considered this more and had more advice in that regard.

The delve encounter format is, BTW, great for the "set piece" style of encounters. But once you diverge from it, it becomes less helpful. Also, it is harder to connect the dots in the adventure when you break out encounters. The general structure of the adventure should be written in a way that I still have all crucial information without having to open the encounter parts - and it should contain enough "meat" so that all the encounters are well connected with plot elements. 
What monsters are there in the encounter later (important: Which monster is which NPC? Sometimes I couldn't figure this out from the stat blocks!) What do I find for treasure? How do I describe the area? Some information will need repetition. That might increase the page and word count, which might increase the price, too. But I guess that's something we'll have to live with.

Generally speaking, 25 encounters / 3 levels for relatively simple plot as in Keep of the Shadowfell or Pyramid of Shadows is too much. 

I haven't looked at the Chaos Scar adventures much (I generally hesitate from reading adventures unless I absolutely want to DM them, since I might play in them), but basically these seem to go more in the direction of a "sandbox". What I said above might not entirely apply to them. A more or less fixed plot doesn't seem to fix the, as the PCs have probably too much freedom to go into any direction and have less pressure to follow a certain plotline. 
But you should probably ensure there are enough things connecting otherwise individual adventures together, and avoid making the individual one too long. Maybe two villains in different "lairs" are exchanging letters, or several adventures involve the thieve's guild. There doesn't need to be a plot in the sense of "the guild wants to take over the country, by using X, Y, Z, and you have to do A, B C to stop them", but there might be a "plot" developing naturally like "the PCs hate these guys and want to go against them. Which adventure did describe the Thief guilds hideout again?" or "The PCs cooperate with these guys so often, how can they become a member again?" 
These connections are needed to spice up string of encounters. Every 2 or 3 encounters might create a new connection (or create a twist or reveal information within the current events).


----------



## Rechan (Mar 4, 2010)

*The Small Things*

*1. The Plot Links: A Web, not a Rope*

The biggest sin I think that the Scales of War adventure path had was that the adventures (at least in the early levels) were not very strongly linked. Which is what makes an AP important, the linked plot! 

In KotS, the plots/areas were linked only by letters. It makes you think the villains just like to write diaries. If the PCs didn't read the letters, they would basically miss any involvement of the villains beforehand. In Thunderspire you have the only thing linking the Duergar to the Hobgoblins to the Well of Demons is the slave shuffle. There should be more incentives, and more plot relevance, to go there. 

This is also a source of frustration for folks running the published modules consecutively: they need help simply to link them all together, to weave the modules together. Nothing links Thunderspire to the PoS. Nothing links Thunderspire to P2. KotS is only tangentally related to Thunderspire by the slaves, but that almost feel stacked on.

I realize that you may not want every adventure to be so tightly woven that you can't pick one up and run it alone, or be missing context clues. But even so, they should have stronger relationships. A good example is a trio of adventures in Dungeon - "Touch of Madness" "Depth of Madness" "Brink of Madness". Each one can be a stand alone, self contained plot, but each builds on the plot of the last. This is strong, awesome, and rewarding to do consecutively. 

*2. Victory. Make it Matter, Never Undercut it*

One of the most offensive things, to me, about Thunderspire is that the hook to get into the adventure is "Slaves were taken, we gotta rescue them". But as soon as the PCs bust into the first dungeon, the slaves are gone. Then they go to the next, and only some are there, and they've been shuffled off to a third dungeon. A player who's been slogging through this dungeon, only to find out "Your Princess Is In Another Castle" will feel cheated of his victory over the dungeon. This should never happen. 

The PCs victories should matter, and advance the story, and possibly "change the game" of the plot (The villain has to change his plans because he's lost this resource over here, etc). 

*3. Value of Reading and Personality*

One of the reasons folks cite Paizo as so great at making adventures is because Paizo puts things in the adventures to make them an enjoyable read. Now, I know that you are writing adventures to be run as adventures, but to have enjoyable ideas pouring out of the pages (rather than encounters set up on the framework fo plot) is going to make the adventure better. 

One thing that makes it better are NPCs, and things the players can enjoy. Rise of the Runelords set the PCs in a town, and _really fleshed that town out_. Second Darkness had the PCs invested heavily in the business they worked for during the first adventure. Legacy of Fire had the PCs tightly associated with the caravan they were guarding. This not only fed back to "Thinking Outside the Box", but it made the NPCs involved really important.

Compare this to Winterhaven, which felt utterly flat. No one felt unique, nothing felt personable. Splug was a good try, but there needs to be more than just Splug.

*4. Not everything needs to revolve around Stopping the Villain*

This gets back to encounters and plot, but one thing that almost seems to be missing is an element of Exploration. Just "There's something there that we don't know, let's go poke it with a stick and see what's there". Thunderspire had the potential for this. But there was always the pressure to "Go beat the villain, go save the slaves", rather than any offered freedom. 

*5. The Magic of the Location*

One thing I feel that truly, truly is lacking is a Mythical/Fantastical feeling. No sites that are merely mythical or truly Strange and Special. A forest made of crystal? A well castle/village/whatnot that only appears during the full moon? A cave that rises up out of the ground when the command words are spoken (ala Aladdin or Ali Baba)? 

Please put locales in there, and make the locales _interesting_ purely because of the spectacle of them. A unique thing, rather than 'Just another kingdome/valley/castle/swamp'. What makes _that place different from all the others_ aside from the monsters inside of it?


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Mar 4, 2010)

I echo alot of the above, specifically:

 - Don't always go for 3 level increases and the ton of combat encounters needed to get there
 - Use more non-combat encounters and scenes
 - 'Webify' the plot lines, create options and flesh out ending scenarios
 - Add 'how to adjust' sidebars for encounters 
 - Memorable locations to explore that have a *history*
 - Highlight authors {I buy pretty much anything by Ari Marimel* or Piratecat...}

For me the modules that are the cream of the crop are Ravenloft I, Ravenloft II, 'Of Sound Mind', and the Deserts of Desolation supermodule.

Each of these felt like the story fit into the world, had solid reasons for the players to continue, and were fleshed out for exploring off the main plotlines.

 How to do this is a 32 page module while remaining setting generic? That is the trick. But I think removing the assumption of leveling up in a module would give some creative room. Moving the Delve formated pages either into the DDI or as additional pages would also help.


Lastly, thanks for coming to my favorite board to ask the fans what our opinions are. As you can tell from many of the above, the fans here are very well educated in what it takes to get a module out the door.


{My aplogies to Ari for forgetting how to spell either his real name or screen name!}


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Mar 4, 2010)

Looking at your post count, a "warm welcome" isn't appropriate, but nevertheless: nice to have you here, eliciting requirements.  (Oops, just had a meeting about our development processes).

I can't see a clear criterion for an adventure's quality. Looking back, you find very different adventures being lauded as exceptional. People mention free adventures without tightly defined plot (Keep on the Borderlands, Temple of Elemental Evil) as well more scripted ones (Red Hand of Doom) when asked for exceptional material.

The first question is what you want an adventure to be. Should it revolve around a story (and/or NSCs) so that encounters and combats have to fit the theme? Or do you see it more like a kit which the DM is expected to disassemble and modify, exchange and re-arrange as he sees fit?

In the first case, you need a strong theme, an engaging plot, villains the players love to hate. Each encounter has to drive the story forward.

In the second case, the encounter or super-encounter (Delve) is the most important part. Each encounter has to have the potential to shine on its own. The plot becomes something to tie the encounters together with.

Or, to put it in other words: in a type 1 adventure you can exchange an encounter without changing the experience, in type 2 you can mangle or exchange plot without changing the experience.

What is your goal?

I'll discuss the more technical aspects when I'm home in the evening.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 4, 2010)

Speaking of authors - are there any adventures from Rob Schwalb? The articles he writes often seem to contain a lot of good and enjoyable fluff. Does this reflect in good adventures, too (this is directed toward those that know such adventures). If yes, figure out what he does. If not, figure out why not and organize adventure writings teams that capitalize on the authors strengths.


----------



## Sigurd (Mar 4, 2010)

You guys produce a lot of adventures. If every writer does not please 10% then you don't please a lot of people. You also please a lot of people who are less vocal.

You have consistently great art. (Keyed and unkeyed art is a must)
You have a fair whack of new\special monsters. ("If you loved the adventure reuse the monsters!")

To some extent your market place means you define the norm. Everyone who does better than you shines and everyone worse receives no attention.


Strategically, If I had advice it would be:

Web Teasers - My players like a carrot and I like something they can get (without too many spoilers) to get them excited. I can tell them details but there is a sense of bargain if they can download it themselves. None of my players have stayed with your forums since 4e but when you had the forums they still mostly used the web enhancements.

Cultivate Writers - I think players have the sense that your products are committee made and faceless. I am not saying this is true but I think that is the sense. Invest more in a profiles for writers who are good at a type of thing. I think players have more loyalty to a Sean Reynolds, Monte Cook or (Insert name) adventure they do to an adventure they see as a number. I think your arms length approach to some of the great settings (planescape etc...) has disenfranchised your franchises because people feel you've deserted their pet world and you're not letting anyone else fill the gap. (I am not talking reality but perception.)
As you undoubtedly know gamers are very loyal to what they feel speaks to them individually. That means they need 100 options to find the 12 they like and reject the 88 they need to reject. I think at this point you need to generate excitement around something they can easily feel personal loyalty to. My suggestion is to showcase authors who have been successful in 3.e as well.
Give the authors a little more artistic freedom to create more unique adventures in their own style.



Without Harping - backlash from 4e and the way 3e was shut down (separate issues).


 My advice would be high profile low cost acts of goodwill.

A million dollar idea - start a habit of including a small cleaned up example of players work at the end of modules the way polyhedron piggy backed on Dragon. A 4-5 page 'All Star' with one map (hopefully reuse or from the cutting room floor) and a list of that Writers 5 fave Books and 3 fave links.
Try not to raise the expectations on the example get too high and have your readership hope to get some attention.


That's the best advice I can give. If I'm ever near your office - I want a tour. 


Sigurd


----------



## DragonHeart (Mar 4, 2010)

I know some others stated this:

1. I loved the 1e modules that put the map on the detachable card stock cover (that doubles as a DM screen).

2. If I use a pre-published module, I like when the parts that the DM were to read were in a box or shaded.


----------



## arscott (Mar 4, 2010)

I haven't read many of your more recent adventures, so much of this criticism may be out of date, but:

As I see it, WotC adventures have two major problems:  Pacing, and Theme.

Pacing:
Look at the map of an adventure from twenty years ago--It looks quite similar to the maps you're putting out today:  big mazes with rooms full of monsters to fight.  The problem is, you're working with a very different game today that you had 20 years ago.  It used to take 10 minutes to fight that room full of monsters--today, it takes an hour.  You need to recognize this, and adjust your dungeon design accordingly.  Excise every encounter that doesn't further the plot or reinforce the theme.  Pick the two or three coolest fights in the dungeon, and ditch the rest.

You also need to put more non-combat encounters in your dungeon.  Fight after fight after fight, and all fights get boring, no matter how cool the fights are (and you guys are pretty good at cool fights).  Instead, mix it up.  For every fight, have some other non-combat challenge that takes up a non-trivial amount of time.  Non-hostile inhabitants that the party can speak to.  Puzzles that test both character skill and player ingenuity.  Rooms that the players can search and explore to gain information about the dungeon ant its inhabitants.

Theme:
Everything seems so disconnected in your products.  Scales of War never felt like a connected series of adventures--It felt like an assortment of random adventures that had an ongoing plot shoddily grafted on.  Even within adventures, you've got some headscratcher monster team-ups.  Take Keep on the Shadowfell--The adventure is about a deathpreist and his goblinoid servants trying to summon an evil creature, but in addition to goblins and undead, you also wind up fighting oozes, gnomes, kobolds, kruthiks, and who-knows what else.  One or two unconnected monsters in an adventure is okay--thirty is a bit extreme.


----------



## UniversalMonster (Mar 4, 2010)

Moridin said:


> So, what I'd like to hear from the community is what you think would make published adventures better. What areas are WotC adventures lacking in that could be improved? What makes a good adventure for you, and why are the published adventures so far not doing that for you?
> 
> If you want to just post some thoughts, that's fine by me, and I'll be eager to read them. However, if you REALLY want to be a superstar, when you talk about something that can be improved, give me an example of a WotC adventure that does that thing badly (or not at all), and an example of an adventure that does that well.





Hey Rodney, Peter Seckler here. I do a lot of DMing with the Living Realms campaign, DM 4E at least twice weekly (and sometimes more) and I have a habit of changing up published adventures as well as writing my own. 

I have some suggestions. 

I've run two of the "official" published adventures: Scepter Tower of Spellguard and Prince of Undeath. 

Of the two, Scepter Tower is better but it has some problems: (The oracle bit is really good, I like the monastery..) but the 3 dungeons are somewhat problematic. Each is completely linear. The wall dungeon, the tunnels, and the tower are all completely linear and must be run in order. 

Prince of Undeath kinda has the same issues, (and has nothing redeeming like the monastery or the oracle that the Dm can make his own) but I was so excited about epic level gaming that I did my best to ignore them (and I hacked in a stopover in the City of Brass between the Red Hold and the Forge of Four Worlds, as well as a subplot about one of the PCs being a prince of hell and being allied with the devils in the Forge of Four Worlds). It's also completely linear (and scripted to the point that ship-based encounters on the Abyssal ship are scripted at intervals). 

The encounters are GOOD, don't get me wrong here, but this adventure has low value for play (it's just too scripted) and no replay value. It's not like you can try an alternate path through the adventure. 

ok, so my advice: 

Detail out the entire area, and the NPCs, and keep creating cool encounters. But please, please please AVOID trying to create an adventure story. This is off limits to designers. You can create the story of a place before it has been explored (ala Barrier Peaks/Isle of Dread) but _let the players and the DMs come up with the story of what happens once the adventure is in play. 
_

When I write adventures myself I have a few encounters planned and printed out, and I have the area/location detailed out, and of course I have my NPCs and so on.. but I never really know what is going to happen in the adventure or which way the players are going to choose.

More paths, more branching.


----------



## Stoat (Mar 4, 2010)

1.  When 4E first came out, WotC made it a point to say that each single encounter should include multiple rooms.  You stuck with this for a while, Shadowfell in particular does it.  You've moved away from it.  Go back to it.  

2.  I like the Delve format ok, but part of the purpose is to include all the necessary information on a single page or two-page spread.  Some of the later Scales of War adventures have Delve-style encounters that run three, possibly more pages long.  At that point, you've lost a lot of the value of the Delve format.

3.  Too many of your epic adventures don't really let the PC's accomplish anything.  Consider Scales of War:


Spoiler



No matter what the PC's do, Bahamut dies.  No matter what the PC's do, Amyra brings him back to life.  No matter what the PC's do, the rebel Efreet agree to help them.


Or consider E3:


Spoiler



The PC's stay one step behind Orcus the whole way, and no matter what they do, Orcus is going to mortally wound the Raven Queen.


Don't be afraid to let the PC's fail.  Railroad less.  Be less linear.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 4, 2010)

Thanks for giving people the opportunity for input, Rodney!

Firstly, I'd like to endorse all the previous comments by *Rechan *and *Mustrum*, which express many of my thoughts but with greater clarity of expression than I could muster.

I've DM'd Keep on the Shadowfell and Thunderspire, and I'd like to make a few comments based on my experiences there.

*1. Too much fighting, not enough talking*

As written, KotS seemed to revolve almost entirely around fighting at every opportunity, it didn't have any opportunities written in the adventure for negotiation, for Kalarel to have visitors (or adventurers pretending to be visitors).

As a related issue, I don't remember exploitable tensions between dungeon denizens. Sunken Citadel (all those years ago) had the ongoing turf war between kobolds and goblins which gave rich roleplaying opportunities. KotS could have been dramatically improved by having some motivations for relationships between kobolds, goblins and hobgoblins, including reasons why they might turn on one another.

Sir Kalarel could have been a really interesting character in KotS, but I felt his story was a bit confusing (and, in fact, the whole temple thing with the skeletons where he was seemed a poor fit together, not terribly cohesive?)

*2. Jack-in-a-baddie*

Both KotS and Thunderspire had a final baddy who pops up at the last moment. We've not seem him before, we've barely heard of him before, nobody has any reason to hate him. He has no reason for knowing anything much about them, he doesn't really know their capabilities and strategies as he would if he had a previous encounter of some kind. 

Also, there isn't really much roleplaying opportunity here (unless they can get him soliloquising, (nods to The Incredibles))


*3. Linearity*

KotS would have been improved IMO if there had been some options included such as a Hobgoblin attack on winterhaven in reprisal after successful adventurer attacks into the upper levels.

The side adventure to the excavation site could have been really interesting, but wasn't tied into the adventure well enough. It would have been good if the adventurers choice of which order to follow up clues had a real impact - what if the PCs had got the maguffin from the crater first, so that Kalarel has to negotiate with them? What if they left the crater to last and so find evidence that their friend has been taken off by slavers one way, and an artifact has gone down into the dungeons?

I like to see adventures which give the PCs the opportunity to make meaningful choices with consequences.

*4. Surprises*

I think a great adventure contains some mysteries and some real surprises/shocks for the PCs (and the players). Of Sound Mind was particularly good in this respect, as anyone who visited the farm will know.

Cheers


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Mar 4, 2010)

Alot of really good ideas here, this is an excellent thread. 

I haven't played alot of the published 4E adventures yet, but I have a few. I can sum up my ideas with: 

Less combat, more exploration and story development. 

Plots and storyline need interaction, discovery, and conversation, not an endless string of combat encounters. 

I realize page count and leveling issues can constrain this, but maybe offer more XP rewards for the non-combat encounters, and maybe bite the bullet and publish larger adventures.


----------



## Pbartender (Mar 4, 2010)

Off the top of my head...

*A Modular Module.* As others have said, follow 1E's lead, here...  Put the maps on inside of the cover, and let the cover be detachable.  For the module itself, have two separate booklets...  one for the adventure, and one for all the stat blocks.  Hand outs should be included on their own separate sheets, or in a fashion that makes them easy to detach and hand out.

*Organization.* If you put stat blocks in a separate section or booklet, don't put them in there alphabetically.  Group them by organization, or by plot stages, or something similar.

Presume, for example, all the stats for Sarshan's shadar-kai, dark creepers and other mercenary followers from _Shadow Rift of Umbraforge_ are listed on three or four consecutive pages in a booklet separate from the actual adventure.  I can have the adventure booklet open to the relevant page for the encounter, I can have the fold maps propped up as a screen, I can have the monster booklet open to the relative pages for the stats, and I can easily mix and match the creatures to tailor the encounter for possible reinforcements and other unexpected circumstances, without flipping too many pages.  Plus, it eliminates unnecessary reprinting of maps and stats throughout.

*What's My Motivation?*  Enemy NPCs and organizations should each have a short right-up including their motivations for doing what they're doing.  Not only does it make the adventure plot make more sense, but it gives the DM a means to judge what the NPCs are doing in the background when the PCs aren't there, and also helps the DM decide how the NPCs are likely to react when the PCs jump the rails...   Is Sarshan just a neutral mercenary monger, or does he have ulterior motives?  If Modra is in such big trouble with Sarshan, why is he so intent on returning to Umbraforge?  Where do Tusk's advance scouts go, if they aren't stopped in the tunnels beneath the Monestary?

*More Talking, Less Fighting.*  The WotC adventures have a tendency to add in extra encounters that have no real connection to the plot and honestly don't make much sense in the context of the adventure other than to provide the XP require to ensure the PCs are at the proper level by the end of the adventure.  Get rid of them.

Instead, replace them with non-combat encounters that provide that XP.  Or, start giving out bits of bonus XP reaching "plot milestones"...  The PCs found the ransom letter?  Bonus XP!  They uncovered the secret portal in the basement of the back alley tavern?  Bonus XP!  They gained extra information from a prisoner they captured?  Bonus XP!  Some of this is already done with Skill Challenges and Quests...  Do it more.  Enough that you can use it to replace combat encounters.

*Run Away!*  Don't be afraid to suggest that bad guys retreat.  In 4E, we have easy triggers to determine morale, such as bloodied hit points.  Not only does it allow for recurring bad guys, but it helps keep the tougher combats from slogging on for too long.

*Treasure...*  Picking treasure parcels is personally my biggest time-suck for published modules.  A handful of suggestions (make it 4, 6 or 8, so we can choose randomly, if we want) for each treasure parcel would be exceptionally helpful, and wouldn't really take up that much more space what you already devote to treasure parcels in the adventures.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 4, 2010)

This is not going to be the best response in the thread, for which I apologize.  However, I can certainly tell you things I dislike in modules:

1.  The Delve Format.  Feel free to ignore this comment; I'm sure lots of folks love the format.

2.  Encounter Order.  I know that it is easier to write an adventure if you know the order that the encounters will occur in, but making the map funnel adventurers into the encounters in a preset order (or close to) minimizes the impact of player choice during play.

3.  Encounters = Combat Encounters.  Few encounters should automatically be combat encounters.  An encounter should be a *possible range of actions and reactions*, which may or may not include combat.  Again, anything that "scripts" how the PCs must react to a situation is bad, because it minimalizes the impact of player choice.  For that matter, minimalizing the impact of DM choice is not so hot either, unless there is a clear benefit to doing so.

Related to this, I recommend looking over some of the 1e TSR modules, as well as some of the better 3pp 3e modules.  Most of the ones that are usually selected as "classics" or "best modules" are those that can be taken from, and lead into, a number of different directions.  While offering a solid framework, they attempt to maximize the impact of player (and DM) choice.  I do not mean on just the tactical/skirmish scale, either.

4.  Skill Challenge Challenge:  Perhaps 4e was not intended to be a game of traipsing around the Feywild talking to pixies, but the skill challenge system can and should be used to do just that.  

Instead of just X successes vs. Y failures, consider skill challenges that require the PCs to make choices as to how to proceed, where those choices determine the skills that may be used.  Further, at each step, success or failure changes the optimal choices that are left.  Some things become harder; some things become easier.  Success overall is based not on the numbers on the character sheet, but on being able to understand the overall situation, and how it shifts, in order to meet it with the proper response.

I've actually been working (sporadically) on converting some 4e materials from Dungeon, so I'll try to come back with specific examples later.


RC


----------



## Deadline247 (Mar 4, 2010)

I’ve only run two of your published 4e adventures, H1: Keep on the Shadowfell and now E1: Death’s Reach. Some of my suggestions may or may not match up with the majority here, but I’ll share them anyway.   


I wish      villains were more fleshed out and gave the PCs reason to care other than      wanting to beat the XP and magic items out of him.
Someone      else mentioned that today’s encounters generally take much longer than      they did in the old days. Please keep this in mind when creating your      adventures.. For example, I just finished DMing my 4th weekly      session of Death’s Reach and my group still has two fights to go before      they actually get to speak to the Raven Queen, which is where the      adventure is REALLY supposed to start. I may not be the best DM in the      world, but I think that 5 or 6 weeks worth of pre-adventure is a bit much.
PLEASE,      PLEASE, PLEASE, make unmarked maps for each adventure available through      DDI. I don’t mind printing them out myself and tiling them together, but      the fact that I have to spend time Photoshopping out all of the NPC      markers is incredibly annoying and time-consuming.
This      probably won’t be popular around here, but I personally would like to have      monster tokens included with published adventures (or at a bare minimum,      downloadable through DDI). My minis collection is rather small and I      either have to use the same minis over and over or else I make my own      tokens from the artwork you post. And someone who is brand new to the game      is going to be stuck using coins or buttons or whatever is handy…which is lame.
On      occasion, why not tap into your stable of fantastic novel writers for      adventure storylines and let your in-house team populate it with encounters?      Personally, I would love to play a 4e adventure co-authored by  R.A. Salvatore, Margaret Weis, or      Tracy Hickman. These people know how to craft engaging stories!


----------



## nedjer (Mar 4, 2010)

More of a heroic leap than an epic fail  Your willingness to consult on this level immediately suggests that you're the guy to turn out some great modules/ scenarios . . . 

Id like to offer a helpful reply but need to delay, as I've been know to cause the odd misunderstanding by teasing the occasional poster into debating a sticky/ touchy point.

And I've access to a tame scientist/ academic who specialises in active learning and case based learning methods. His view's would be more interesting than mine. I'll just rattle his cage 

Later.


----------



## im_robertb (Mar 4, 2010)

I like combat encounters to be fleshed out in a page or two, with everything present (encounter map, terrain, monster statblocks, tactics). This is part of why I like the Delve format; it actually gets this done.

Encounter maps need to be designed in a way that allows for easy map setup in in-person play. I consider myself a DM with a lot of options for the miniatures; I have 1 copy of 5-6 different sets of dungeon tiles, as well as a dry-erase battlemat (28x19 squares, which is just the laminated paper battlemat from the 3.5 DMG), but some the Scales of War encounters are just atrocious in terms of map setup. 

Good Examples:
Dungeon 156, Rescue at Rivenroar: Indoor maps are simple and not excessively large. Outdoor maps, while large, have simple, sweeping features that can easily be drawn in a few sweeps of the marker.
Dungeon 160, Den of the Destroyer: In the fortress, most rooms are of reasonable size, and the ones with walls that don't conform to the gridlines are smaller and simpler. Despite this, every encounter area is still *interesting*.

Bad Examples:
Dungeon 159, The Lost Mines of Karak: P.76, the encounter on the dunes. 
Dungeon 161: The Temple Between: Most encounters in the temple, but particularly M6: The Grand Cathedral (P 44). The room is 22 x 36, with multiple heights, and slopes that it took me 3 readings to understand. Consider how much my PCs will struggle with that. Knowing I'd come to this encounter at some point is one of the things that turned me off of running Scales of War.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 4, 2010)

Drkfathr1 said:


> Alot of really good ideas here, this is an excellent thread.
> 
> I haven't played alot of the published 4E adventures yet, but I have a few. I can sum up my ideas with:
> 
> ...



That's a good suggestion, I like that.

Seriously, if that adventure needs to cover 3 levels and all you have are two dungeons to work with, considering "cheating". Use skill challenges and many high value Quests for extra awards. 

Maybe an approach here would be: Every time the PCs gather important information, meet a crucial NPC, or make an important decision (preferably one that changes the adventure in a meaningful way and not favoring one in the design of the adventure), this could be a Quest. 
- PCs interrogated Luisa Krause: Minor Quest.
- PCs discover that the Mayor has been replaced by a Changling: Major Quest. 
- PCs convince the Kobolds to rebel against Irontooth: Major Quest
- PCs kill all Kobolds serving Irontooth: Major Quest
- PCs steal the Red Dragon's hoard while he's absent: Major Quest
- PCs kill the Red Dragon: Minor Quest
- PCs found the great Kobold Waterfalls: Minor Quest

The players might be unaware such a quest existed, but still quests provide the "mechanical framework" - a justification, so to speak - to give XP for stuff that's not combat. It allows you to keep the desired progression rates without forcing a great combat density. You can reward stuff that is not just combat-combat-combat. The last example with the waterfall could be a reward just for exploration - and whatever a game rewards will become what the players want to do. Even in a dungeon-heavy adventure, this can make a difference, as the PCs are driven to explore the dungeon and discover features, even if they don't help stop the evil ritualist or drive the kobolds out of the region.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 4, 2010)

Oh, I just remembered a more "minor" thing - sometimes I don't understand what's supposed to be going on. This can apply to weird trap descriptions (I still don't know  how the trap with the Otyough in the Pyramid is supposed to work - Understand the mechanic, but not the visuals) or to PC powers whose names are not sufficient to explain or visualize the effect.


----------



## Stoat (Mar 4, 2010)

Another point.  I know you have Dungeon Tiles to sell, and I suppose its a good idea to use them in adventures.  But use them smart.

Let me direct you to Web of Chains from Dungeon 168.  This is a pretty terrible adventure anyway, but the maps are drek.

1.  Encounter E3.  The map on page 15 is entirely too small for four large monsters.  The trench/ditch makes little sense and is poorly placed.  It's obviously only there because you have a tile with a chasm on it.  Also note that this is a 3 page encounter, defeating the purpose of the Delve Format.

2. Encounter G1.  "Although represented on the map as two parallel rivers, this is in fact one waterway 4 squares wide."  Look at this map and be ashamed.  

3. Encounters G2 and G3.  Use of dungeon tiles just makes these maps look ugly.  Especially weird is the way the background abruptly changes around the tower from grass to dirt and the fact that the walls don't look anything like walls.  

On the other hand, I found most of the maps in Dungeon Delves to be good looking, creatively shaped and interesting.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 4, 2010)

Moridin said:


> Hello there everybody,
> 
> In case you don't know me, I'm Rodney Thompson, a D&D developer at Wizards of the Coast. Over the years I've seen WotC adventures take some knocks, to put it mildly. To put it more bluntly, I've seen comments to the effect that WotC adventures are, ahem, the worst. I'm not sure I agree, but there is a perception out there that some WotC-published adventures are sub-par.
> 
> ...




print them for OD&D(1974) 

yes, i am serious.



> If you want to just post some thoughts, that's fine by me, and I'll be eager to read them. However, if you REALLY want to be a superstar, when you talk about something that can be improved, give me an example of a WotC adventure that does that thing badly (or not at all), and an example of an adventure that does that well.
> 
> The only other things I ask are this: 1) Be polite and respectful. I am not going to take you seriously if you rant and rave. 2) Avoid hyperbole. If I see the words "epic fail" or "worst adventure ever" there's a good chance I won't take your comments seriously. 3) Don't use this as a soapbox from which to launch complaints about 4th Edition. We're here to talk about adventures, people, not game systems.
> 
> So, that's pretty much it. Help me out, would ya?





some of the problems i have encountered  with adventures developed and released by WotC.

1) too long. too much. too railroady to get the job completed. return to the temple of elemental monotony.
not every adventure needs to be an Adventure Path style or mini campaign.

2) forcing the players to go to area 1 to fight. get clue 1. go to area 2 to fight. get clue 2... ad naseum. is just frustrating. it gets the PCs ramped up to the level you want them for each encounter. but it is a poor exercise in teaching roleplaying. also it means many times some levels are just dump levels since you bump them up for the next encounter without even giving the player a chance to flex his new found/won powers.

3) not enough back ground notes. why is monster X here. what other monsters does he know about or has had interactions with. who can he get aid from. how does he eat. what about replacements. returning patrols. how does the complex react to intruders that have cleared out areas?  background. background. background. and along these lines it means helping the DM figure out some hooks or leads he can give for his campaign. give npcs and monsters quirks or something memorable.

4) timed adventures. city of the spider queen did this. but at the same time it messed it up since the first 30 days the party had no influence on... avoid setting up unobtainable time plots. yes, make it challenging. but when a party decides to take a year off in game to study navel lint/ trade/ buy / or make their own kewl items instead of adventure it can be a bummer for them to get railroaded into it instead.

5) speaking of railroads. avoid the obvious. you can make the rube goldberg machine adventure. but if the players come up with an alternate solution make it feasible. ergo, give notes to the DM about what might be a feasible alternate for the encounters you require the previous one to have been completed.

6) charts and tables in a detachable appendix. hand drawn pics and other hand outs. get the players involved. not just their characters.

7) avoid +1 sword. give each item an unique name or flavor. rename some spells in found spellbooks. make some potions have odd tastes, smells, or appearance.


----------



## ArcaneSpringboard (Mar 4, 2010)

Dannager said:


> In fact, better yet, do what you must with your print product adventures, and then publish extensive digital supplements to the product through DDI. Not only can this help you fill perceived gaps in the itches your community is looking to scratch, but it's yet another draw to the subscription service. Publish NPC backgrounds online, extra non-combat locations (in towns and such), extra novel treasures for the party to come across, etc. You have this really amazing tool for delivering whatever content you want to a huge fraction of your fan base. Leverage it every single opportunity you get.




This.

I've become very disillusioned with Dungeon over the past year.  I'm just getting less and less use out of it.  In fact, if it weren't for the Monster Builder I'd probably dump my DDI sub.  I loved the Eberron conversion article for Keep on the Shadowfell, and was very disappointed when that feature turned into a one-shot.

It got even worse when E1-3 came out and I decided I wasn't going to buy them because I really couldn't see a decent way to run it in Eberron due to the non-existence of the Raven Queen.

The problem is that while WotC says that they want to have their adventures generic, the fact is that they're becoming more and more entwined with the PoL setting.

But what I'm really disappointed with is that one-off adventures in Dungeon have become an exception as opposed to a rule.  I love the concept of the Chaos Scar (and in parallel the Dungeon Delve book), but it's been months since it started and we're still only seeing Level 1 or Level 2 adventures for it.  A lot of us are into Epic now.

The Adventure Path I'm not interested in at all.  I'm not interested in comitting to 30 levels of a single adventure path, yet space and money on the scale of 20 months of Dungeon magazines are taken up by it.  Especially once the plot gets going I can't really take those adventures and slot them into something else.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Mar 4, 2010)

Thanks for stopping in Rodney, I think we all appreciate at least having the chance at being heard. I hope you get a few 'unanimous' opinions.

My main problem with the modules is the story to fights ratio. The current modules should, based on the amount of story given, really only stretch over 1-2 levels, given the amount of time that it takes to get through 4E encounters (which by the way, isn't a bad thing on its own.) Every fight should be important; or there needs to be vast changes in the system. In previous editions you could spend 15-30 minutes on a non-important fight and it's okay. In 4E you're spending 50-70 minutes (if you're a fast group) per fight, so if the fights are unimportant it's a recipe for boredom.

For a module like H1: Keep on the Shadowfell, cut the encounters in half, at least. Maybe in a third. Then, write essentially another 4E module's worth of story, at least, and put in more encounters to accomdate that increase in story. For Keep on the Shadowfell, it could be that you find out that Kalarel is certainly a bad guy, but his plan is already going (as someone else mentioned.) You have to go to another location, perhaps in to the Shadowfell to stop it. 

I'll let you guys do the creative thinking; the point is, if the story really only justifies/supports a few encounters, then don't stretch it out to 30.


----------



## Ferghis (Mar 4, 2010)

Moridin said:


> I'm making it my mission to change the way we design, develop, and edit adventures. It's not going to be a fast process, or an easy one, but I've formed my task force and have visited the quartermaster for ammunition and supplies. However, like any mission, mine needs some good Intelligence before the work can begin.
> 
> So, what I'd like to hear from the community is what you think would make published adventures better. What areas are WotC adventures lacking in that could be improved? What makes a good adventure for you, and why are the published adventures so far not doing that for you?
> 
> If you want to just post some thoughts, that's fine by me, and I'll be eager to read them. However, if you REALLY want to be a superstar, when you talk about something that can be improved, give me an example of a WotC adventure that does that thing badly (or not at all), and an example of an adventure that does that well.



I'll really regret posting this if you take this as trolling, but being, by far, a player and not a DM, I don't read adventures that much, to preserve the mistery in the off-chance that I might play in them. Therefore, I'm unable to really make any superstar comments. To avoid such spoilers, I've also skipped over most of this thread, which otherwise would be a pretty rude thing for me to do. However, I have been playing the game since the 80s, and follow the industry with interest. A dear friend who I grew up with runs a gaming store, so, in particular, I follow some of the economics of the industry. For example, I'm an eager reader of Steve Jackson's annual report, the most recent of which should be coming out soon: Report To The Stakeholders - Page 15 - Steve Jackson Games Forums

My first though is this: *have you considered paying adventure makers more?* I can't say I know exactly what you pay them currently, but my impression is that it's less than they used to make. And I have doubts as to whether you are in a position even suggest such a notion to those that could make decision. Nonetheless, I can't help but wonder if you, or your task force, have discussed this idea. 

I say this because the low pay may (and I do mean _may_) help explain why those who do author better adventures prefer to do that work outside of WotC. But also because I think better incentives may help foster better work from those that do submit their adventure ideas to WotC. Further, I fear that vague references to "the economy" stifle the real utility that "more money" may have when invested in specific ways. After all, a bad economy means that you have to be more careful where you spend your money, not that you should stop spending money.

I don't pretend that this alone may be the only solution, and, again, pre-emptive apologies if I am out-of-place or offend anyone when making this suggestion. But you asked what my thought was, and the above was my first thought.

My second thought is: *make more and better skill challenges*. I hear experienced, talented, and hard-working DMs that have only vague ideas of how to setup skill challenges. Giving them good, milestone-worthy skill challenges would greatly assist them in making their own. For example, I would love to see the effect that the adventurers can have on a large scale battle determined by a skill challenge of some kind. Or, put together some epic skill challenges that have the players administering a territory. Or, since sending one character alone to scout has become less feasible in 4e, make scouting skill challenges that only cost the party surges if failed (whereas otherwise, a failed scouting mission would cost the party a character).

I realize these suggestions are perhaps better incorporated into another DMG, but the truth is that most DMs I know buy adventures to cannibalize the ideas therein for their own adventures. Rarely do they buy and play an adventure as-is. This is, in part, what the points-of-light setting realizes. So, my hope in putting out my second though is to provide you with something I see a need for in adventures. Because any DM will be happy to read a great skill challenge in an adventure.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 4, 2010)

Wow. Okay. Way to put me on the spot, Rodney. Now I have to put my money where my mouth is and propose actual solutions instead of just snarking at WotC. 

Let me see here.

First of all, I don't think all WotC adventures are bad by any means. There have been some really stellar ones, in fact. "Red Hand of Doom" comes to mind as one of the all-time greats. On a much smaller scale, there was that tiny little solo adventure in Dungeon a few months back - "Dark Awakening," it was called. Barely long enough to merit the name, but it packed a really engaging adventure into that space.

But there's also stuff like "Keep on the Shadowfell," which... yeah, kind of sucked.

So, what's the difference?

Mostly, I think it's a question of pacing. You have to keep the energy level high, keep the players engaged, keep the plot moving. This means:

*Don't string fight scenes together without a break.* This is especially important in 4E where there is no such thing as a brief combat. When _every single fight _takes 45-60 minutes, you really have to put some breathing space between battles. Put in some exploration, some traps, a social encounter or two, a mysterious location with clues to discover.

"Dark Awakening" was one of the shortest adventures I've ever played, yet it had a lot of exploration scenes and even a social encounter (in a solitaire adventure!) interspersed with the battles. I really got into carefully, stealthily scouting out the dungeon. "Keep on the Shadowfell," on the other hand, felt like a horrendous slog because it was just... fight this, then fight that, then fight the other thing.

*Keep the focus.* Keep reminding the PCs why they're doing what they're doing. They should be constantly reaching little milestones that advance the overall plot.

"Red Hand of Doom" was brilliant at this. Every few encounters had us defeating one of the evil overlord's lieutenants or winning allies for the big showdown to come. Despite the massive length of the adventure, we always felt we were pressing on toward an objective. In "Keep on the Shadowfell," there were long stretches where we felt like we were just whacking goblins to whack goblins. Our only reward for successfully whacking one group of goblins was to get another group of goblins to whack. 4E combat is engaging, but it's not _that_ engaging.

*Change the scene.* As a poster upthread mentioned, after a certain number of encounters any dungeon has overstayed its welcome. Wrap it up and move on. Players like to explore new things. To some degree this ties in with the previous point about reaching milestones; one of the ways you can create that feeling of focused advancement is to have the PCs reach _literal_ milestones as they cross the game world.

"Red Hand of Doom" took us all over the place, with adventures in swamps, ruins, mountains, you name it. Most of "Keep on the Shadowfell" took place in, well, the Keep on the Shadowfell. It got old.

More on this as I think of it.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Mar 4, 2010)

I'd like to echo the call for diversity.  The DMGs include some wonderful advice on identifying types of players and tailoring encounters to them.  Let's identify different types of campaigns and D&D games and tailor adventures to them.  Designing adventures to appeal to every campaign risks bland flavor (since some DMs have their own campaign settings) and an emphasis on combat (since most campaigns feature combat).

Let's take H1 as an example.  I think it works great for DMs who want a straightforward introduction to the system and a dungeon-crawling style of game.  I ran it pretty much by the book, to kick off the first D&D campaign I ever ran.  In hindsight, I realized that I prefer more narrative logic in my adventures, and I see so many missed opportunities for story and role-playing.  If I could go back, I would try to bring the keep to life by making each section its own mini-dungeon with its own story.  Maybe the goblins have always lived there and chafe under the rule of the recently arrived Kalarel and the hobgoblins; the PCs can convince them to rise against him.  Of course, Keegan and his dead followers are the original inhabitants, and he can send the PCs on missions to specific other portions of the keep, to wipe out intruders or even to retrieve his children's effects from the level beneath.  The hobgoblins themselves could be purely mercenary, opening up other role-playing opportunities for turning them against Kalarel.  But I feel like H1 focused on engaging encounter design, since that's what every campaign could use.  H1 includes a page (22) entitled "DM's Advice: Add More Story."  As an inexperienced DM, I would have loved some help and more examples on how to do just that.

Of course, I'm not saying that every adventure should cater to my style.  I'm just saying that you should be aware of different styles and work to address all of them (presumably, in proportion to their incidence rates in the community).  For myself, I really enjoyed the latest Chaos Scar adventure, Crossroads.  It's location-based, so it doesn't assume any particular order of events.  It provides some evocative flavor (the gibbet tree) and NPCs with personality (the current occupants of the trading house).  It provides useful suggestions and ideas for how to make the adventure relevant to a campaign (put an existing NPC in the tree), as well as obvious hooks for further adventure (the dwarven caravan).  It errs more on the side of a toolkit for creating adventure, instead of a scripted adventure (such as H1) or a purely background article (like many of the DM resources in Dungeon magazine).

To sum up: diversity.  Just as Dragon aims to provide something for every player in every issue (but not every article!), your adventure line (but not every adventure) should provide something for every DM.  I would like to see more risks taken, particular in the pages of Dungeon magazine, where you can presumably afford to be more specialized.  I'm actually very encouraged by the TOC of the current issue, which includes a horror adventure and a city-race adventure.  I'd love to see more Eberron adventures or locations, too!  And diversify not just in genre, but in DM style!

Anyway, thanks for listening.


----------



## Stormonu (Mar 4, 2010)

First, I just wanted to echo some sentiments I've seen here:  KotS feels like it was designed backwards - as if the encounters were designed first and the plot was tacked on as an afterthought.  For module design, I think its much better if the designers hammer out the story/plot and then come back in and fill the adventure with encounters that fit that theme, rather than trying to do the reverse.

Also, I'd also like to say that I prefer adventures that have the map on the inside cover that can be separated from the module.  I'd also think an innovative solution to the player vs. DM map problem some folks have with the maps would be to produce a transparency (probably two-piece, since I'm guessing transparencies don't fold well) to go with the map that shows the location of monsters and such on the map, and can just be hidden if the DM needs to show the map itself to the players for some reason.  The DM just lays the transparency on the cover map, letting him see where NPCs, traps and whatnot are, and can hide it for scanning to 1" squares or showing PCs.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 4, 2010)

Further thoughts:

*Don't get too linear.* Now, obviously there's a conflict here. The more possible branches your adventure plot contains, the more of those branches will necessarily go unexplored, meaning you're doing more development work for less return. So obviously you can't get _too_ branch-y. The story does have to get from A to B in the end.

But do offer _some_ branches. The players need decision points and meaningful choices... or at least they need to feel that they have them. "Red Hand of Doom" had a clever approach to this, with a number of places we _could_ go and things we _could _do, but a limited time in which to do them, so we had to decide how much we thought we could handle and what we wanted to tackle first. Similarly, "Dark Awakening" gave me a number of routes to take, though they all led to the same place in the end. "Keep on the Shadowfell" let the rails show a little too clearly.

*Proactive bad guys.* The bad guy should be an active force in the game world. In RPGs as in fiction, it's usually the villain who drives the plot. So make sure the villain is out there doing things, changing things, messing with the PCs.

"Red Hand of Doom" had this in spades, with the 



Spoiler



ever-advancing goblin horde


. So as not to keep picking on "Keep on the Shadowfell," I'll switch to "Bastion of Broken Souls" for the opposite example here; the big villain of that adventure had a serious case of Orcus On His Throne. He just sat in the Bastion waiting for us to come to him.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Mar 4, 2010)

To try to add something that others haven't already, both I and my players really enjoyed seeing a semblance of the Victory Points system from Heroes of Battle appear in Red Hand of Doom.  I had been quietly tracking the passing of time from the start (as advised by the module), and when speaking with the captain of the town guard in the initial "Please help us kill the bad things" conversation, she wrapped up by saying something along the lines of "Excellent.  I'll see to it that the stablemaster has horses ready for you at dawn."  One of the players shrugged with a half-sarcastic OOC remark of "Ok, sure, not like it'll make a difference."  When I was able to respond (truthfully ) that there was a list of consequences within the module depending on how they resolve certain issues and how quickly they did so, everyone in the room perked up.  It added a very clear sense of ownership and weight to the players' actions to know that yes, there _was_ more to this than a series of rooms with an evil wizard guy at the end.

In fairness, that presumption was probably drawn from the fact that our only module experience prior to RHoD was in using the free 3.5 modules posted on the WotC website. They were almost without exception monster closets, and we used them for expressly that purpose: "Half the group isn't going to be able to make it this Saturday? Okay, somebody else DM a one-shot." So in that respect they were complete successes... but they were also the kind of successes that I don't think any of us would be interested in buying, were they not already free.


----------



## Shemeska (Mar 4, 2010)

Based on my opinion of 4e in general, my advice here may be discounted, but it's constructive criticism, so hear me out. And it's a good sign that you guys are recognizing complaints by customers and potential customers. Hopefully something good comes out of this.

WotC 4e adventures tend to be exceedingly formulaic and rapidly devolve into grinding fight after grinding fight. Make the story and the locations the focus of the adventure, not the 'you must be X level at each stage of the adventure and therefore you must have Y number of combat encounters' design shtick that has often felt to me to be at the center of 4e adventure design. Don't allow your system mechanics to dictate plot, setting, and story elements of an adventure. It's boring, jarring, and artificial.

Drop the delve format. Please, drop the delve format. You guys fell in love with it in late 3.x, but it seriously disrupts the flow and story of an adventure. It makes things feel like disjointed combat encounters linked together, and that has only gotten worse in your adventures as time has gone by.

Dungeon's adventures have felt far too often like what the guys on staff at WotC manage to write when they can squeeze in time to do so. It seems like it doesn't get the attention of printed work, and that's a problem. There's a perception that Dungeon and DDI articles in general are somewhere between afterthoughts and at the level of the web articles that were released for free during the 3.x period, but now they're behind a paywall. What's my point? Either provide your staff with more time to work on stuff in Dungeon, more time in development, more editing, more playtesting before release, or take them off of it and hire more outside freelancers.

With slim (but often well written) exception (Shwalb, Kulp, etc), a lot of stuff is just in-house guys, and Dungeon lacks the sense of community contribution that it had when it was a printed magazine. There's no longer lots of discussion by people pitching ideas to the magazine, and I think that you're at risk of having the creative well running dry if you don't bring in new writers and -advertise- that you want people to contribute adventures. Now 4e isn't my thing, so it isn't me looking for work, but when I talk to multiple freelancers at last GenCon and all of them sigh and shake their head regarding hearing anything back from the e-zines regarding pitches, you have a problem in reality or in perception. And in this instance, they hurt you just the same.

Get new people involved. Get new ideas.

Don't force every adventure to be PoL. This cannot be said enough. You've taken a bruising over forcing core 4e and PoL quasi-setting into other settings, and you're doing the same to supposedly generic adventures.  Honestly if you're going to make generic adventures, make generic adventures, because if people don't like the tropes and themes of the PoL quasi-setting, they're going to be seriously turned off by the trend of having literally everything in that setting, even if it's generic or even if it's nominally part of another supposedly unique setting. Please please allow material that isn't PoL. Allow things to exclude parts of the core or go beyond the core themes and tropes. Diversity in adventure content and design is key, and you're not providing that right now.


----------



## The_Gneech (Mar 4, 2010)

Moridin said:


> I'm making it my mission to change the way we design, develop, and edit adventures. It's not going to be a fast process, or an easy one, but I've formed my task force and have visited the quartermaster for ammunition and supplies. However, like any mission, mine needs some good Intelligence before the work can begin.
> 
> So, what I'd like to hear from the community is what you think would make published adventures better. What areas are WotC adventures lacking in that could be improved? What makes a good adventure for you, and why are the published adventures so far not doing that for you?




Heyas Rodney!  You're a brave, brave man.  And while I have my issues w/ 4E, I'm going to try to keep them separated from my response as much as possible (unless they really are germane).

FIRST: What makes a good adventure?

One of the things I liked "in the old days" (say, "Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh" old) was that there was a lot of variety to the modules being put out. Part of that is because the whole game was new and people were still figuring out what worked "best," obviously, but it also made for a lot of variety that seems lacking now. One adventure was a piratey yo-ho foray, another was trying to survive on Monster Island, while a third was dealing with this crazy temple to !Cthulhu with a giant sleeping god hanging from the ceiling. (Not to mention one that's a giant space ark with insane robots kicking out monsters.)

Somewhere along the line, that wide canvas started to shrink away. Not just at WotC, but for many of the 3rd party types, the standard template is "here's a valley, with town X here and dungeon Y there." It's a good template, but it's surely not the ONLY template. One of the things Goodman Games really nails with its "old school" feel is the ability to come up with some locations that feel like we haven't really been there before. Even something that is at its heart a pure dungeon crawl, like "Curse of the Emerald Cobra," still manages to feel exotic with its village-on-rope-bridges and steppe pyramid locale.

NOTE: Speaking only for my own personal preferences, I'm not necessarily referring to "elemental motes" and sailing ships made of ice pirated by djinni, or tromping various levels of hell. Those can be good of course, but I think they're seriously overdone these days. I strongly prefer the more grounded "sword and sorcery" of older editions, where there may be extradimensional portals at the bottom of the Temple of Elemental Evil, but MOST of the adventure is set right there in the natural world.

SECOND: What makes a weak adventure?

Strangely enough, being tied too strongly into any setting, even a super-generic one like the "points of light" is supposed to be, makes an adventure much more of a hit-or-miss proposal for me. The more of the implied setting I have to pull out, the less interested I am in bothering with it.

By the same token, "adventure #4 of 6" is almost useless to me. I know lots of people got very excited by the "adventure path" concept, but frankly I don't care for it. A single mega-adventure, a la the excellent _Red Hand of Doom_ is fine -- if it happens to be a story I'm interested in -- but for the most part I want smaller things I can plug in to my campaign when and where I need. I'll do the connecting myself.

From what I've seen of the 4E stuff, WotC seems to be trying to have it both ways here, by making adventures that are theoretically tied together but in actuality are little more than a bunch of encounters that only connect by virtue of being stapled into the same book. Net result: it doesn't really do either very well. Thinking of Thunderspire Labyrinth here ... the Seven-Pillared Hall is a great hub, and the various subadventures in it are varying degrees of cool, but there was no through-line really to tie them together, and the references to both Keep on the Shadowfell and Pyramid of Shadows might just as well have been scribbled into the margins for all the connection they had. While that in itself is not a bad thing (I didn't run Keep, I probably won't run Pyramid), a lot of the promo text for Thunderspire _suggests_ that it's supposed to be part of a trilogy, which made me hesitant to buy it.

Honestly, my recommendation would be not to leave out such margin scribbles -- go ahead and include them -- just don't use them as selling points. Because in my experience at least, if I feel like I need Pyramid to use Thunderspire, I end up just not buying either of them.

OTHER POINTS -- THE DELVE FORMAT
Count me in the anti-delve camp here. I strongly dislike the delve format, for many reasons.

It's hard to see the big picture. Especially when the "complete dungeon map" is in one book and then each room has its own map in the other, and the numbering doesn't match up. "The guards in area 2 will hear. 'Area 2? Where the heck is area 2? All I see here is an H and a Q.'"
Artificial page count restrictions make for inconsistent and often incomplete writeups! So we've got a 10x10 room with an orc and a pie ... which gets a half page of backstory and roleplaying advice because it's such a simple encounter. Then we get a three-tiered boss fight that's all stat blocks and no staging information at all, because that would run over to the next page. No way to run a railroad.
How much am I paying for this useless cardboard folder with its pretty, pretty round-cut edges? I'd rather have more pages of adventure in the good old booklet form.
Pretty maps are pretty, yes. But honestly, I am perfectly happy with blue lines on a grid printed on the inside cover as long as the writing they illustrate is strong.

FINALLY, WELL, SOME OF THE PROBLEM -IS- 4E PHILOSOPHY
Please don't just dismiss this as edition-warring, because I am trying to give serious feedback here. 4E from day one has been presented in an over-the-top _"OVER 9000!" Everything is badass and superawesome!!!_ way and, while that is probably good for getting attention, it's not sustainable. Somebody who wants to stick around, or has been around for a long time and doesn't _need_ to be sold on the game, gets "awesome fatigue."

But if you look at some of the classics that people remember fondly, they're not all "awesome." Bone Hill is mysterious. Temple of Elemental Evil is brooding and malevolent. Barrier Peaks is just plain weird.

4E, for all its "Throw it all in! Get right to the good parts!" philosophy, is actually very monotonous to me, and that includes the adventures. "You're in a perfectly balanced room with kobolds. Now you're in a perfectly balanced room with undead. Now you're in a perfectly balanced room where some of the floor is made of fire. Now you're in a perfectly balanced room with dire wolves. And when you're done with each room, you'll be right back where you started and fresh to go on to the next room."

This ties in with the famous fracas about Mike Mearls vs. the Rust Monster. In the long run, if every encounter is simply balanced within itself, and at the end of each one you're right where you started, +300 XP, it makes encounter design much easier -- but it _kills_ story. And I think this is a serious problem that 4E is going to have to deal with before you're ever going to get really good adventures out of it.

TALKING DOWN -- THE *OTHER* 4E PROBLEM
This is more a stylistic issue that has become prominent in 4E, rather than anything to do with actual game mechanics, but it's also relevant to adventure design. I know that the idea is to make the game "accessible," but the writing style in 4E has a real problem with making me feel like the writer thinks I'm stupid -- or least figures I might be -- and so has to keep their words short and make sure they don't lose my attention.

I'm not the first to have said this, and unfortunately I haven't been able to find the exact quote I'm looking for on the topic, but one blogger wrote eloquently about the "Gygaxian" mode of writing, where an obviously smart writer was writing for somebody he considered an equal. This was fine when I was 12, and it's still fine now.

I think this is one of the things people may be pointing to when they talk about "dumbing down" games -- not necessarily that the game itself is "dumb" but that there's a general feeling of "let's not use big words that will scare the kids away". (The other thing being a certain sense that adventuring has become "push button: receive treasure," which is closer to my topic above regarding a steady diet of perfectly-balanced encounters.)


IF YOU'VE READ THIS FAR, I THANK YOU 
There are at least two reasons to buy an adventure: how it runs at the table, and how it is to read. I've bought (and love) several adventures that for one reason or another I will probably never run, and think of them as "great adventures." And in many cases I've lifted pieces -- the grell attack in _Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil_ is a terrific single encounter that I used with great success in a scenario that was otherwise completely of my own devising.

The delve format, and the focus on making something that you can just pick up and run with barely looking it over once, is probably great for a certain audience, particularly convention play, and I know that's an important part of the _D&D_ brand. But, well, it doesn't make for "great adventures," it makes for "serviceable convention play." The long-running home campaign is a different beast, and I think at some level you're going to have to look at your adventure design with an eye toward which audience you're trying to reach. It might be in your best interest to do different adventures in different formats -- have a series of "Convention Play Modules" and a series of "Campaign Modules," with each one optimized to serve its intended audience best.

Thanks for asking. 

-The Gneech


----------



## Pbartender (Mar 4, 2010)

Something else to mention:

A lot of people are talking about expanding the variety in encounters.  Normally, I'd view this as a good thing.  A half dozen encounters in a row using the same three types of goblin gets real boring real fast.  However...

The encounters still need to make sense within the context of the adventure.  If I'm sending a party in to take out a band of rampaging hobgoblin bandits, I'd expect to see mostly goblinoids (goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears), maybe a handful of allies (maybe orcs, kobolds, ogres and the like), and a few monstrous "pets".  What I wouldn't expect to see is gnomes and fire elementals (Rescue at Rivenroar, I'm looking at you!).


----------



## Oryan77 (Mar 4, 2010)

Coupons for free booze is an instant favorite of mine. If I buy an adventure, and it comes with, say, free beer (any kind, I won't be picky), it will be at the top of my list of all time favorite adventures. Even if an underage child buys the adventure, that's still ok. The coupon can be given to his father, or he can hold on to it until he turns of age.

Other than that, one thing that WotC adventures really seem to lack is more focus on the NPCs fluff. I miss adventures having lots of boxed text that includes what the NPC says, or what the NPC might say. It helps give me an idea on how to roleplay the NPC in a way that I may not have thought of.

Really, it's the little things that matter to me that seem to be missing from current adventures. I enjoy being told how a room is furnished & decorated. I think my players enjoy it also because it gives them more to interact with. Rather than killing the badguy and leaving, they might snoop around. And rather than just telling me, "I search for traps/loot", they can tell me, "I search under the rug" or "Do the paintings look like they could be valuable?"

Basically, there is way more focus on crunch than there is fluff. And by fluff, I don't mean just the adventure background & NPC histories. I mean details that will help me bring the world alive.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 4, 2010)

Dannager said:


> You don't want your customers to feel they're not getting enough bang for their buck. A lot of the people who buy published adventures are doing so because it's easier than making their own. If every level of adventuring costs them a $15 published module, they're going to be dropping $450 on an entire 1-30 campaign. That's a steep price to pay. It's much easier to swallow in the more reasonable 9-adventure format seen in the H-P-E series.




Is this really a problem?  I only get to run 2 sessions/month max and I find there's far more I want to do than I can ever get done!  Maybe it's because I'm old with job, wife & child, and the target demographic have more time to fill, and less money?  But people spend $60/£40 on computer games with far less play value, don't they?

Anyway if it is a problem, they could sell more packets of multiple short (1-3 session, 3-10 encounter) adventures, rather than what feel like heavily 'padded' 30 or 50 encounter multi-level epics.


----------



## Daern (Mar 4, 2010)

I agree that shorter modules might be less overwhelming to a campaign.  The big mods so far feel like a mini-campaign each.  Which can be cool!
The things that printed mods can do that Dungeon can't is handouts and poster maps.  These are my favorite parts of the H/P/Es.  Cardstock handouts and poster maps go a long way towards getting me to buy even if I don't think I'll run the module.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Mar 4, 2010)

My opinion is that WotC adventures (3e as well, but it seems worse in 4e...not neccessarily due to the game, but likely because it was simply heading in that direction already...it was worst in 3e as time went on) lost the goal of "telling a story".

The combat elements are fine. WotC adventures have been described (frequently) as "all dungeon crawls". By this, I think people mean that their focus is on combat to combat...with plot as a mere means to get to the next combat. A dungeon crawl need not happen in a dungeon.

What I think provides great adventure is when the players are invested in more than "set pieces" as characters. 4e gets (unfairly) criticized as not good for roleplaying. I blame WotC adventures for this. 

Emphasize story. Emphasize roleplaying and character decisions. Make them nonlinear (even if the events are the same, perhaps how they play out is different, like an npc who wants to help or hurt the pcs based on decisions/roleplay).

In short: MAKE PLAYERS FEEL LIKE THEY CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE OUTSIDE OF COMBAT (and, again, not just a difference in how fast they get to the next combat).


The best (read: only good) 4e adventures I have seen have all been by Open design. I suggest strongly that you check those out.


----------



## Windjammer (Mar 4, 2010)

Aberzanzorax said:


> My opinion is that WotC adventures (...) lost the goal of "telling a story".




Perhaps to you. If you look back at page 3 you'll find an eloquent post by Peter (Seckler) who says the complete opposite - how he finds the lack of a pre-scripted story, or even outline thereof, something in favour of a good module.

I expected this to happen fairly soon to this thread - as DMs we have varied expectations regarding what makes an adventure module 'ideal'. (Something Rodney sure knew when going in with the OP.)

The design approach of codifying a story into a module is what typifies Paizo's products. When 4E lead designer Mike Mearls wrote a module for them ages ago ("Three Faces of Evil"), people complained about the lack of 'story' and about it being a huge slugfest with unmotivated combat end to end.* Here's Mearls' reply:



> Someone in this thread made a comparison between Three Faces and Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. That's a very apt comparison - if you didn't like RttToEE, you probably aren't going to like Three Faces.
> I have an adventure design style that veers about as far into 1e and away from 2e that you can get. I write adventures that let the PCs, rather than the NPCs or the DM, drive the action. If the players want to roleplay, they can try to negotiate with the denizens of the mines. If PCs want to kill them, that's what they're going to do. There's nothing in the adventure that dictates a specific course of action that the PCs must take to "solve" the adventure.




This design tenet surfaces quite a bit in _Revenge of the Giants_, my favourite 4E module to date.

*Read the thread. I think a lot we've been saying here is echoed over there, which proves that the dissatisfaction is pretty editions-neutral.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 4, 2010)

Windjammer said:


> Perhaps to you. If you look back at page 3 you'll find an eloquent post by Peter (Seckler) who says the complete opposite - how he finds the lack of a pre-scripted story, or even outline thereof, detrimental to modules.
> 
> I expected this to happen fairly soon to this thread - as DMs we have varied expectations regarding what makes an adventure module 'ideal'. (Something Rodney sure knew when going in with the OP.)




Undoubtedly. Still, there are some common threads - for instance, it looks like most folks agree that WotC's recent adventures have been sloggy, with too many fights one after another. The people who like sandbox adventures feel like they're being railroaded through endless battles and the people who like plot-driven adventures want to get on with the plot. 

It might be worth creating two different types of adventure, with explicitly different expectations. Call them Adventure Settings (sandboxy, PC-driven) and Adventure Arcs (linear, plot-driven).


----------



## Stoat (Mar 4, 2010)

The_Gneech said:


> It's hard to see the big picture. Especially when the "complete dungeon map" is in one book and then each room has its own map in the other, and the numbering doesn't match up. "The guards in area 2 will hear. 'Area 2? Where the heck is area 2? All I see here is an H and a Q.'"




I wanted to pull this out of the Gneech's post, because I agree.  I think a lot of the complaints about 4E adventures lacking story comes from the fact that the story is crammed into a few short pages seperate from the encounters -- which take up the bulk of the adventure.  I find that this makes it harder for me to keep up with the overall plot of the module, particularly in Dungeon, where moving from the "story" to the "encounters" requires scrolling through a .pdf instead of glancing from one book to another.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Mar 4, 2010)

The most common complaint I hear about WOTC adventures is "not enough fluff."  You need to put out stuff to satisfy people who want story heavy adventures.

Oddly enough, there are people who complain about not enough flavor and also people who complain about too much flavor form the PoL setting.  Let's not give the OP mixed signals here...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 4, 2010)

I read that as "not enough flavour about the adventure; too much flavour about the world defaults".


----------



## The_Gneech (Mar 4, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I read that as "not enough flavour about the adventure; too much flavour about the world defaults".




Yes, what RC said.  I don't care about the PoL setting -- but I want a very flavorful description of _this dungeon_.

-The Gneech


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 4, 2010)

Windjammer said:


> Perhaps to you. If you look back at page 3 you'll find an eloquent post by Peter (Seckler) who says the complete opposite - how he finds the lack of a pre-scripted story, or even outline thereof, something in favour of a good module.




I'd like everyone to ensure that they don't post to 'take issue' with anyone else's comments, please. That way is likely to lead to arguments and conflict.

For the purposes of this thread, Let Rodney decide what he wants to take from each individuals contribution. That means everyone is free to give their examples of good and bad, without concern about how other people might react.

Thanks


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 4, 2010)

The_Gneech said:


> Yes, what RC said.  I don't care about the PoL setting -- but I want a very flavorful description of _this dungeon_.
> 
> -The Gneech




Very well put. "Keep on the Shadowfell" should be pretty agnostic as to what big evil extraplanar power is behind everything, but give us chapter and verse on Kalarel's motivations and history, his lieutenants and _their_ motivations, the Keep itself, et cetera.


----------



## Windjammer (Mar 4, 2010)

Well, my intent wasn't to *devalidate *Aberzanzorax's opinion or assessment - when, in fact, it's an assessment I even share.  

I just wrote the post to (re)alert us to the *diversity *of opinion here. Which is exactly what I go on to say.


----------



## The Ghost (Mar 4, 2010)

Hi Rodney!

  First, I have not been a big fan of WotC Dungeon/Dragon. When it came time to renew my subscription I let it lapse largely because of the quality of the adventures.

  Second, I have not read this whole thread; only the first page or so. I don’t know if what I am going to say here is repetition or new information. 

  Third, I am going to use Silver’s Call, Dungeon 174 by Stephen Radney-MacFarland as an example. It is good example, I think, because it does a little right and a lot wrong. It is also short enough that I can go through it piece-by-piece and show you where the good and bad parts are.

  The adventure starts on page 62 (which is actually page 9) in the version I had downloaded. The artwork is pretty evocative; a balding man and a spiky-haired woman with electricity dancing between them. The DM’s hook, however, is fairly mundane -- _“The wizard Casaubon hires a group of adventures_ (I believe this should be adventurers) _to help him achieve his destiny. The characters must confront mercenaries, warlocks and an ancient evil as they unseal the final barrier imprisoning this powerful treasure.”_ -- there is nothing in those two sentences that make me say “Cool!”

  Page 10 is the best page in the adventure. The first four paragraphs provide a nice synopsis of the adventure (although the actual Adventure Synopsis is on page 11). Again, “adventures” is used in place of “adventurers” and the hypertext [link] and [/link] appear around “Chaos Scar”. While individually these are really rather minor concerns, taken together I am starting to get a feeling that this piece was rushed out the door. (I make no claims about my own ability with grammar being any better – I do expect more from people who do this professionally though.)

  The rest of page 10 continues under the title “Background” -- this, to me, is the best part of the adventure. It is interesting, it hints at a larger world, and it gives me information that I can play around with later on in the campaign.

  Page 11 starts by finishing up the background information -- again, nothing really bad here. The “Adventure Synopsis” is a pretty straight forward as well, although I am starting to wonder why there was a need to write a synopsis on page 10 and on Page 11? I did enjoy that the author gave some characterization to Casaubom -- I think it is important to give the DM some guidance as to how to play the NPC. I think more could have been done with the rival, Ediza. The hints at overcoming the mercenaries in ways other than combat was a nice touch. 

  The part about Dungeon Tiles I am going to set aside for the moment. I will discuss them more in the encounter sections of the adventure.

  The treasure parcel system is something I am not a big fan of. I prefer that -- if there are magic items to be given out -- they should be relevant in the stat-blocks of the encounters. This is just a personal opinion and I am sure that there are many who will disagree.

  “Getting Started” -- pretty basic read-aloud text here. Not much more than “I’m a wizard, I have money.” The Insight and (on page 12) Arcana checks add a nice amount of character to Casaubon. As does the detailed sidebar named Casaubon. I think I would have liked all of the information to play Casaubon to be in one location rather than spread throughout the adventure. 

  The section entitled “Digging Deeper” is very useful and very flavorful. My players tend to be of the more cautious type and prefer doing a lot of research before they go on adventures. Having some guidance there is a huge help to me.

  “Approaching the Cave  of Dark Whispers” Reading through this section I got the feeling that this was the third time I have read a synopsis of the adventure; then I realized this was the adventure. Sigh. It is pretty linear; encounter #1, then encounter #2, then encounter #3. I have no options but to encounter them in that order. I have no map to set up the area. No guidance if my characters want to scout around. No alternative ways to proceed with the adventure. 

  From here we move into the three sections of tactical encounters. The first being “Mercenaries at the Mouth” The actual encounter (assuming combat) is pretty good; there is a nice combination of artillery, brutes, skirmishers, and lurkers. The section on tactics is nice, as is the section on surrender. There is something missing though, earlier the author had mentioned bypassing this encounter “in other ways”. Well, there is no guidance as to what those other ways are. Perhaps a section detailing a skill check to sneak by the guards or, a section detailing a skill check to bribe the guards. Both seem to be completely obvious tactics a party might take. 

  A word about Dungeon Tiles. They are limited. Looking at the map on page 15 it presumes that the party will enter on the left side. That is where the path comes in and where the most open space for the PCs is. Unfortunately, when I laid that map out on the table my players immediately wanted to sneak around to the top of the map, and assault the mercenaries from that direction. This completely negates the tactics section on the previous page. The mercenaries know the importance of a well fortified position and yet they leave open a gigantic hole in the structure where they can all be assaulted easily by savvy PCs. It seems like a logical tactic for intelligent players to take -- sneak around to the place where you have some cover and the mercenaries don’t. The map should have extended up at least another ten squares to account for that tactic. 

  The second tactical encounter -- “The sealed Doorway” -- again has a good collection of monsters, and the tactics section works nicely. The PCs need to stop “X” from happening -- it feels very cinematic. The only thing missing is a good description of the chamber, how does it look and feel, give me descriptions!!!  

  A second word on Dungeon Tiles. Looking at the map on page 18 is tough. It is kind of this funny polygon and there is way too much white space on the page -- it feels incomplete. Even just surrounding the dungeon tiles with cave stone would help alleviate the “unfinished” look. (This is also a problem throughout the adventure. There is a lot of white space. Given my concerns about there not being enough descriptions, guidance, etc. it feels like the author/editor wasted space.)

  The final encounter -- “Call Heeded” -- again has a nice collection of monsters. The transformation of Casaubon is a nice little switch at the end. Again, the map leaves something to be desired, as does the descriptions of the room.A little more characterization of Casaubon would be nice.


  All in all, I thought the adventure started out pretty good but then fell very flat once the encounters started happening. I like flavor, I like characterization -- I want more of that. The encounters themselves are pretty nicely done mechanically. You got the steak, now give me the sizzle.


----------



## Loincloth of Armour (Mar 4, 2010)

More than simply fight locations, most encounter/rooms should have something unique in it. It doesn't have to play to the adventure, but merely added for atmosphere and something the players can interact with after the fight, or even incorporate into a page 42 stunt check.

The smaller, the more 'regular' the items, the better. For example the following could be spread throught the dungeon:

1) A shelf on the wall with three dwarven skulls on it.
2) A half drunk bottle of foul-tasting wine on a table.
3) A small (un)holy symbol hanging from a doorknob.
4) A bunch of crumpled up paper in one corner. Looking at them shows they are attempts at a love letter.
5) A child's toy, covered in blood.
6) An angry rat in a cage.

Just things to make the dungeon/unhallowed temple/manor house feel like more than just a set piece for hp bashing. This can go a long way to building an environment the players will think about later. "Hey, remember that fight were we beat that kobold who was unlucky in love?"


----------



## SlyFlourish (Mar 4, 2010)

Hi Rodney and thank you for the opportunity!

My group is running through H1-E3 and we're up to E1 now. As far as what I liked and didn't like:

I loved Keep on the Shadowfell as did my group. We also loved Thunderspire Labyrinth and Demon Queen's Enclave. I would have liked Pyramid of Shadows and King of the Trollhaunt to fit in better with the "go kick Orcus's butt" plot line of the rest of the series. I would have also liked stronger ties between the P1 to P3 series. I have been able to add this central hook myself - the perversion of the Soul Well from H1 to P3 and the final battle against Orcus from E1 through E3 but this could have been better tied together.

I would have much preferred a single book for the whole adventure rather than two books. I always found myself flipping around and shuffling books when I needed something from the original book.

I would like more read-aloud text rather than descriptions that I'm supposed to read and interpret and then describe to my players in the overall story background. The read-aloud text for the encounters is fine.

I would like a summary of important ties between encounters on each encounter page such as:

PCs will reach this through encounter 3 and 5.
PCs will receive the sword of cutting here. 
PCs will open the vaults and enter encounter 7 here.

I would like much better integration with Dungeon Tiles as others have mentioned. I didn't buy two sets of every dungeon tile release only to have to whip out the flip-mat. Design Dungeon Tiles around your adventures and vice versa.

I'd also like to see better integration with D&D Miniatures. Don't build encounters with seven minions that use rare D&D miniatures. Try to build encounters with creatures that at least have a D&D Miniature substitute that makes sense.

Another thing to consider is building D&D Adventures more like packs of Dungeon Delves that I can put together into a variety of possible scenarios. I tend to rebuild the published adventures to fit my own general arc. Thunderspire Labyrinth did this pretty well with very separate and distinct areas. Same with Demon Queen's Enclave.

Anyway, that's probably enough comments for now. Thanks again for the opportunity!


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 4, 2010)

Windjammer said:


> Well, my intent wasn't to *devalidate *Aberzanzorax's opinion or assessment - when, in fact, it's an assessment I even share.
> 
> I just wrote the post to (re)alert us to the *diversity *of opinion here. Which is exactly what I go on to say.




Thanks for the additional explanation. I only quoted you since it was the first incidence of anything similar, and I just want to make the general point to other people not to do it.

Cheers


----------



## Stormrazor2000 (Mar 4, 2010)

I have run a few WotC modules, many pre 3.0, some 3.5 and 4.0. Although with 4.0 I only bothered with the first module, KotSF, to get a feel for the system. My first impression on reading the module was that the entire purpose of the module was to introduce DM and players to the 4.0 rules. Like others have mentioned here. Linear, slugfest of combat after combat.

 For learning purposes it was ok, but could have been much much shorter.  My gaming group honestly got to the point of "Ok we understand the system can we play a less boring module now?"

I think the main point is that it seems you haven't figured out who your audience is. So your modules try to do too much and end up not doing anything really well. I think another poster suggested having different "lines" of modules. Story driven modules, dungeon crawls, weird stuff (where constraints are thrown out the window for the group looking for something really different - Like the good old Barrier Peaks module.), Epic adventure arcs, and so on.  I really like this approach because as a consumer I can easily pick out the types of modules my group and I enjoy (story driven). 

While I think DDI is an interesting way to provide more fluff to adventures, please for the love of Pete don't require it. Everything should be in the module. What would be really cool to provide via DDI is adaptations of every module to official campaign settings (FR, Ebberon especially). That would be huge value for the buck right there. 

So to sum up. Define the audience you are writing for, and market to that audience. Don't try to please everyone in every module.

Cheers!


----------



## ArcaneSpringboard (Mar 4, 2010)

arscott said:


> You also need to put more non-combat encounters in your dungeon.  Fight after fight after fight, and all fights get boring, no matter how cool the fights are (and you guys are pretty good at cool fights).  Instead, mix it up.  For every fight, have some other non-combat challenge that takes up a non-trivial amount of time.  Non-hostile inhabitants that the party can speak to.  Puzzles that test both character skill and player ingenuity.  Rooms that the players can search and explore to gain information about the dungeon ant its inhabitants.




This too.

I'm just reading Labyrinth of Madness (from 2e) for converting it to 4e.  I don't see anything even _remotely_ like it in 4e.  Puzzles have been completely missing from 4e as far as I can tell.

As it is, I'm spending some of my time and money on an old 2e adventure that WotC doesn't even get any money from (used).  I'd much rather have spent money on a 4e version of it.


----------



## Riley (Mar 4, 2010)

Rodney,

Thanks for taking an interest.

In short: 4e adventures have had too many combats; too little of everything else.

I recommend reading the discussion of "Seekers of the Ashen Crown" here:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...d-4th-edition-ashen-crown-dungeon-crawls.html

I particularly recommend this post:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...n-ashen-crown-dungeon-crawls.html#post5108435


----------



## Noumenon (Mar 4, 2010)

> "not enough flavour about the adventure; too much flavour about the world defaults".




Here's an Eleven Foot Pole post touching on that issue in _Thunderspire Labyrinth_.

In fact, I feel that one blog has more to offer your adventure designers than this whole thread.  He's got advice on flavor text, NPC design, plot design, and dungeon design, and because he blogged KotS and Thunderspire Labyrinth encounter-by-encounter, everything he says is attached to very specific design choices.

Maybe what you should do is hire him to do a quick onceover on everything?

Or you could copy Magic the Gathering's Great Designer Search.  What they did is like a reality show: "This week, everyone has to design a skill challenge.  Next week, everyone does an NPC, within these constraints, and the worst designer gets cut."  The judging allowed the Magic designers to sell their design philosophy to the audience, and it was a cool read.  And, they ended up using all three of the winners as designers!


----------



## bagger245 (Mar 4, 2010)

I would like to echo on the "too many combats" statement. Though I know why it is necessary. I am interested in an intrigue adventure where there are more skill challenges than combats. Of course this may not cater to all, but at this point the combat-inclined fans are getting lot of love already. I also think too many combats will rid players of the story momentum. I have played long dungeon crawls and at the end of the game, I would forget what's the quest as the story fades into the background and only reemerges when combats are over. Perhaps is designing adventures, come up with a plot like a movie and then add in combat where ever NEEDED. Though this being D&D, it might be hard to do due to the mentality of the game's playstyle.

It is very important that the very first module of a D&D edition must be GREAT due to it being the doorway to the game and will be the most popular. Keep on Borderlands, Sunless Citadel and now Keep on Shadowfell are an example.


----------



## Marx420 (Mar 4, 2010)

While I do not play 4e I might be willing to invest in quality APs if you actually do manage to incorporate even a modicum of these constructive criticisms, as I'm always in the market for imagination fuel. Suggestions:

1) Rampant rumors and red herrings, not enough of these in the 4e modules I've played and I believe they constitute a believe they need more emphasis as sometimes they are the only role playing dedicated dungeon-bashers partake of in their resupply runs (potential comedic value too).

2) Extraneous details, the module need not detail only the delve itself and attached township of loot laundering, but areas and groups that mayhap play a role or influence the adventure without overtly entering into it's play sphere sketched out (even very cursorily) to be integrated at the DM's discretion.

3) Finally, The RANDOM, the idea that by entering these world's of fantastic adventure one should be prepared to encounter and overcome anything and everything whether plausible or not. The capricious whims of fate forge many strange things and I believe the crazy and capriciously dangerous needs to make a reappearance pronto to restore the reverence PC's once had for dungeons now relegated to the role of "loot-holes". Throw aside balance issues and put the imaginative concepts first (yes even stuff like the green demon face from the Tomb of Horrors) and slap down metagaming preconceptions and overriding dungeon "themes" with the fury of a thousand demon lords.

Generally, get in touch with your roots, kick it with an old school campy aesthetic and don't place game balance concerns on such a high pedestal they strip all variability and wonder from the infinite canvas of dungeon design.
Oh, and puzzles, I loves me some puzzles that rack the brain's of my otherwise unflappable PCs.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 4, 2010)

mshea said:


> I would like a summary of important ties between encounters on each encounter page such as:
> 
> PCs will reach this through encounter 3 and 5.
> PCs will receive the sword of cutting here.
> PCs will open the vaults and enter encounter 7 here.



I think this describes what I wanted to say in a preceding post better. Figuring out the connections between the encounters and the story is sometimes (if not often) challenging due to the way they are organized. 
The Dungeon Master is not running individual encounters, he is running an adventure, and a campaign. The individual building blocks like encounters or skill challenges needs a high usability, but also the story containing these encounters need to be usable. 



> I would like much better integration with Dungeon Tiles as others have mentioned. I didn't buy two sets of every dungeon tile release only to have to whip out the flip-mat. Design Dungeon Tiles around your adventures and vice versa.



It seems that there is some disagreement on that area, but I think one important thing is - use the dungeon tiles wisely. Maybe it wouldn't hurt to create actually maps using both dungeon tiles and "hand-drawn" parts, to show how you can best represent the map on the table. The dungeon tiles shouldn't lead to maps of a low quality that have "plot holes" in them as an aforementioned example where any good player would sidestep the default entrance, leaving the DM to guess what works.


----------



## TerraDave (Mar 4, 2010)

This is why I love ENWorld…

I am going to try and summarize a lot of the feedback you are getting into three inter-related categories. 

*Put better background to better use:* Shadowfell was OK in revealing the tragedy of Sir Keegan and the history of the rift. But just OK. More story, more flavor, more active villains, this is all about having that back-story and then using it in play, both through revelations but also in actions of hostile and non-hostile NPCs.  Better does not mean complicated, Thunderspire is a good example of just a few too many fiendish lords, a few too many underlying elements, and a few too many a “link to these bad guys” then “links to these bad guys” which then…

And too much Torog. As noted above, 4E has overdone the common world elements and not brought enough unique flavor to, well, anything. I know why this has been done. But that doesn’t make it a good thing. This is how people (mostly DMs) use this kind of fluff: they skim over it thinking how boring it is, and then “invoked devastation, that’s cool!”  This does not mean they want to then read about the invoked devastation over and over again. It actually means the opposite. 

*Pacing and Exploration: *4E could be characterized as building the ultimate encounters..and then playing one after another after another. Not all encounters should be equal (and the irony is that 4E gives you more flexibility in this regard then just about any edition) and they should be interspersed with stuff that doesn’t involve fighting. Pocking around dungeon corridors, solving puzzles, non-combat npc interaction, encounters that could be fights or not. Again, H1, H2, they have some of this, but not enough.  Also, this is where the whole Delve format comes in, which essentially obscures the exploration parts of the adventure.

Lets take another example: Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. This has so many cool fights and individual creatures, and some really cool non-fighting puzzle type bits inspired by the Lost Temple of Tharizdun. And yes, some opportunities for role-play. But the whole feels like less than the some of the parts, because of _too many _cool fights, one after another…

*Variety:* You are getting a bunch of people calling for this. And we both know, those cool out of box adventures often only appeal to a niche audience. But still. Something like a solid city adventure. Or an Ilse of Dread. These would have a broad appeal, though they might be a bit tougher to do. Obviously this applies _in_ adventures as well, though it does have to be balanced with having a coherent theme, and back-story (point number one) .

*Examples? *The classics are full of strong variety and varied pacing. Of course they cheated: combat was shorter (pre 3E, or some versions of 2E), so by default you would spend more time on other things. But then this is something 4E has to make up for. And the best of the classics also brought the back-story. G-D, the better Ss, and of course Ravenloft and the other Is. 

My favourite example is a much less illustrious 3rd party 3E module: Ne Moren’s vault. Seemingly very conventional, but with a great mix of stuff and a very good backstory that is carefully revealed through the adventure.


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 4, 2010)

I think most of what I have to say has been said already, but due to it being so true, I wanted to repeat it..

First of all, let me say that I am a huge 4e fanboy and own everything made by WotC so far, as well as everything made by all major 4e 3PP's and in my mind, there is little doubt that your adventures are by far the weakest products WotC produces. With that said, I have never been part of the camp that thought they were horrible. Some are very good, but there are some things that could definitely be improved upon.

Now, in order to do so, what you should work on is the rhythm, the pacing of the adventures. As is, there are just too many combat encounters in an adventure. This makes them slog along, feeling boring. Now, back in the good old days, there would be a lot of encounters as well. Problem is, modern day combat takes a lot longer. This means that on a game night, typically 4-5 hours or so, the story will progress very little, because the time will be spent going through 4 encounters against some kobolds/goblins/orcs etc. The players and DM will frequently leave the table with the feeling that they didn't really achieve much, at least not story-wise. Sure, they might have killed some monsters (which is certainly fun), but the story is still at more or less the same point as it was before they sat down at the table.

So, what I would like are adventures where;
1)You do not spend 8 sessions in the same dungeon.
2) You get to the meat of the adventure quickly. Don't make 5 (random) encounters before they get to the dungeon. And when I say (random), I mean encounters that does not progress the story at all. And that does not only hold true before the dungeon. Inside the dungeon as well.

3) With the space gained from removing adventures, you should add in more fluff, more RP encounters/skill challenges, more puzzles, more traps, more interesting NPC's and more story. In short more detail.

Below are a couple of examples of some notes I have taken regarding two adventures from Dungeon.
[sblock=Example - Heathen]Heathen is a fairly straightforward adventure. The PC's, who are at the edge of civilization, land by mistake in the middle of a cult war. In order to help the Light of the Sun-cult (the good guys), the PC's go on a search mission for a missing paladin, (former) leader of the Light of the Sun. Their trek takes them through the ravaged country-side, finally ending up at the Pillars of Night, an ancient site built by giants, now taken over by the Hand of Naarash (the bad guys). There they discover (first twist) that the paladin did indeed make it here, but that he has switched side and is now the leader of the Hand of Naarash. Fighting their way into the paladin's inner sanctum, the PC's discover that the paladin has been corrupted by a demon (second twist) and have to face that as well.

I like this adventure, but as many other official adventures, it could do with joining a fitness club and get the fat trimmed a bit.

IMO, a simple adventure like this should not be more than 6 encounters long.
In order to make a shorter, yet cohesive adventure, I would do the following:
Either use one of the hooks, or make one that fits your campaign. The cut the first two encounters. Blades in the Night should be first encounter. The other two serves little purpose other than fillers. While some love random encounters (I use them for myself), they are not for everyone, and it is my belief that published adventures are better off without them. Arguably the first encounter, A Timely Rescue, serves as introduction, but its a bit boring, so no need. Instead let the PC's experience the aftermath of the cult of Bane's destruction as they move through the countryside.

I would also either drop the Skill Challenges completely, or rework them from the ground and up. We have learned a lot since June 2008 when it comes to SC's, and they can definitely be better. Or you could do what we always done, roleplay the whole thing and maybe toss in a few checks here and there.

Continuing, I would definitely skip the Hunter and Hunted encounter, again, it serves little purpose.

Arriving to Adakmi, which is an interesting little village, I would expand on Glasur, the dwarven riverboat captain and his pike-driven boat, the Blacksnake, just to make the encounter with him a little more than just a: Hi, need a boat? Sure, I hate the cult too, so it won't be expensive!" thing that the original adventure has going.

You should keep Fire on the Water, to bring the doings of the cult more front and center of the adventure, and it's not a bad encounter either.

You should also keep Friend of My Friend - it advances the story. But you might need to tweak the solo, as it is way too weak as it is atm. Also, you should give anyone awake a perception check - after all, while he is invisible, he still makes sounds.

At this point, you have 3 encounters before getting to the main part.

Consider ways to get through secret arcane locked doors if no rogue present. Perhaps some arcane skill challenge to disable the magic.

There is a fairly big skill challenge that the PC's need to go through in order to acquire information about the fate of the paladin, but that can easily be achieved with good old roleplaying, but you will need to create and flesh out a lot of routines and NPC's. I would probably do it even if you should choose to run the SC as it is.

Inside the temple, keep the two encounters which are really traps, to support the idea of an ancient protected temple, and of course the final battle with the demon and/or the paladin. IMO you are better off ditching the Last Stand Encounter. [/sblock]
[sblock=Example - The Sleeper in the Tomb of Dreams]

A century after a battle between two armies and their evil generals, an evil cult is trying to bring back one of the evil generals, and if not stopped, the Far Realms creatures that follow that general.

Sleeper in teh Tomb of Dreams has several things going for it. First of all, I like the setup, but it also has a couple of interesting hooks, some nice maps and one of my Top10 favorite traps. But IMO, it suffers from too many combat encounters, especially because there is no natural break or place to take a break and get an extended rest. 9 encounters with nothing but short rests might be a tad much for most groups.

If you want to run it as is, you could "rule" that Volkanth and his posse of foulspawns are locked in the ritual/ceremony for days, so no one wanders off. This would mean that the chance of players being disturbed while taking an extend rest to be slim. Personally I would cut quite a few encounters and instead perhaps insert a time limit into the adventure.

To begin with, I would remove Brigands. The fact that Volkanth has to be able for steal the bones of the evil paladin in order for the adventure to work reeks of railroading. Therefore, in order to avoid this, I would instead start the adventure with the PC's being a bit further away, hearing the screams when the Raven Queen worshipers are attacked. So that when thePC's arrive, they find that Volkanth and his minions are gone, with a nice set of tracks made by the minions - which they can follow once they have been given the quest by Sister Naenia.

This means that Warwood Creek will be the first encounter. Although I would make a few changes to fit better. The whole notion of the chillborn zombies just happening to be asleep at the exact spot where the encounter happens is a tad far fetched, so instead, make the encounter consist of Tiefling Heretics (you could even reflavor their powers to be a bit more necromantic) and chillborn zombies. The zombies would still be hiding under the ice, waiting for the tieflings to attack.

Remove Battle of Stargazer Hill. It's more of the same, while providing nothing new.

Keep Guardians of the Descent. It's an interesting encounter/trap.

Keep The Hanged Ones. This is just an awesome trap. But if you want to be even more evil, change the minions of the encounter to ghost minions who attack while the trap is still working.

Also keep Seer sees the truth. Not only does it advance the plot, but it has that Far Realm flavor, as opposed to certain other encounters.

Remove On A Razor's Edge. It doesn't advance the plot, and while the monsters are thematically sorta in tune with the adventure, I still think it falls short.

Remove Wrecking Eye, as it is yet another filler.

Keep The Sleeper's Tomb, of course.

That gives you a nice adventure, 5 cool encounters (2 of them involving a trap) which should be doable without having to take an extended rest. As mentioned earlier, you could add a time limit to the whole thing. Maybe some of the inscriptions in F1/S1 could indicate that the ceremony needed to take place on this day, so that the players know that the ceremony is already on the way and probably will end soon.[/sblock]

Thanks for doing this.

Cheers


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 4, 2010)

One thing that would help a lot would be a way to do skirmish combat in 4E, where the fight only lasts 10 minutes instead of close to an hour. That would make it possible to design old-school dungeons where you find a group of monsters, kill them quick, and move on; while retaining 4E's ability to have the grand set-piece battles when the major villains show up.

You could probably do this just by designing a new category of monster, with very low hit points and a front-loaded offense, built to do its damage in one quick burst before the PCs whack it... sort of a minion-plus. But that could be venturing beyond the scope of this thread.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 4, 2010)

Well, the only two options I see available for you are the combat simulation minigame and the skill challenge minigame.  Each can be made to vary more, but unless there are new ones I don't know of then any published adventure is only going to include those two formats.

I agree with letting adventure designers think outside the box.  Do not design according to the rules.  Bring in the story crew, people like the best level designers for computer games and then let the math-head game designers try and apply the rules after the fact.  IMO creative thinking really needs that "I can do anything" feeling to create fresh ideas and approaches.  Don't fence them in before they start.  

If you really want to attract attention, bring fresh meat to the table.  Bold, new ideas are going to get noticed.  That's not to say you should not look at the past.  Some of the most influential ideas in history were pure theft of an older idea put to prominent use.  2e Dungeon magazine had some truly amazing adventures and adventure elements that don't get to see the light of day very often.  They are one of many resources available to you.  As I've been told, any good artist is stealing half of the time anyways.


----------



## delericho (Mar 4, 2010)

Moridin said:


> However, if you REALLY want to be a superstar, when you talk about something that can be improved, give me an example of a WotC adventure...




The only WotC 4e adventure I have read is "King of the Trollhaunt Warrens", and I've read it but never run it. So, I'll be confining my examples to that.

(I should note, though, that WotC's record with adventures in general hasn't been very good - of the 3e adventures only "Red Hand of Doom", "Sunless Citadel" and the "Barrow of the Forgotten King"/"Sinister Spire"/"Fortress of the Yuan-ti" trilogy really struck me as _good_, with a few others having good parts but not really gelling as a whole. Even the SWSE adventures in "Scum and Villainy" and "Galaxy of Intrigue" have failed to wow me.)



Moridin said:


> So, what I'd like to hear from the community is what you think would make published adventures better. What areas are WotC adventures lacking in that could be improved?




The Skill Challenge in "Trollhaunt" is very poor: succeed, and the PCs get where they're going; fail and they get an exciting combat encounter, some treasure, and _then_ they get where they're going.

Secondly, it's a railroad. You _have_ to go through the Skill Challenge to get to the dungeon, then you _have_ to go through the Prime Material version of the dungeon, and then you _have_ to go through the other-planar version of the dungeon. I know that a published adventure will always be something of a railroad, but I distinctly recall a "Design & Development" column musing about how to change it. (I believe the author was talking in relation to "Shattered Gates of Slaughtergarde" at the time.)

Thirdly, it's very little more than just a sequence of combat encounters, one after another. They may well be _good_ combat encounters, but where are the opportunities for roleplay? Where are the monster factions that clever players can turn on one another? Where is the non-combat dungeon dressing that serves no purpose but to generate that all-important sense of wonder?

There's just nothing in that adventure that makes me want to run _that_ adventure, rather than a conversion of "Against the Giants", or "Howl of the Carrion King", or a Goodman Games/EN Publishing module, or just an adventure of my own making.

I would also strongly advocate taking another good look at the "Delve" format. The 4e version is much better than the 3e version, it's true, but I still find that it makes the adventures too rigid in construction - encounters all have a certain pattern to them, monsters never move from one location to another (and, worse, always remain in the same space until encountered), and so on. In theory, I'm a fan of the format; in practice, I have grown to loathe it.



Moridin said:


> What makes a good adventure for you, and why are the published adventures so far not doing that for you?




Meaningful choices. Rather than force the PCs through the one-size-fits-all Skill Challenge, offer a choice: do they risk the swamp to try to 'sneak up' on the dungeon (Skill Challenge), or do they take the road, knowing they'll have to fight through the agents of the King (combat encounter)?

Role-play opportunities. Include different factions. Include NPCs who _might_ be opponents to kill, or might be sources of information, or might be possible allies. Also, try to be a bit more inventive with BBEG motivations: is the King out to lay waste to the town because he's Eeeevil... or is he a deluded follower of an otherwise benign god, intent on bringing a cleansing fire to the people?

Thematic elements. Too often, it feels like encounters are built from a stance of "these sets of abilities would go together to create an interesting fight", without consideration of why those monsters would work together in the first place. The monsters in a given encounter should share a theme (gnolls with hyenas, for example), or have a clear reason for working together against type. (Added bonus: if there's a reason why the Dwarf is working with the Vampire, it provides scope for the PCs to break up that alliance...)

Similarly, the encounters in the adventure as a whole should share a theme, although this need not be tied together nearly as tightly. But you wouldn't want an adventure set in the desert where fully 50% of the monsters are more suited to the Frostfell...

Oh, and please, let's have better names! "Trollhaunt Warrens" is actually quite good, but I'm afraid there are too many that just aren't. Names like the Bloodspike Behemoth make the game feel like it's written for children, and while there's no shame in writing for children, I'd much rather play a game for adults, thanks.


----------



## Nikosandros (Mar 4, 2010)

Ferghis said:


> I say this because the low pay may (and I do mean _may_) help explain why those who do author better adventures prefer to do that work outside of WotC. .



I thought that WotC pays more than anyone else in the industry. Is that actually not the case?


----------



## El Mahdi (Mar 5, 2010)

deleted


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Mar 5, 2010)

Some general comments (sorry, too busy to break out a module to give specific commentary right now):

- Lose the current two-book format.  It is very frustrating to have half of the encounter information in one book, and the other half of the encounter information in the second book, requiring flipping back and forth to run the adventure.

- I want meaningful choices for PCs in the way an adventrue progresses.  Too many of WotC's adventures are linear -- room/encounter A, followed by B, followed by C.  Even if the individual encounters can be solved with different methods, the PCs still face them in the same order.  Btter adventures, in my opinion, provide multiple paths to the end goal.  That can just be different routes through the dungeon, that cross over and intersect from time to time, but it is enough that the party choosing to go left has a different experience than a party choosing to to right.

- Skill challenges aren't working as written.  I've yet to see one in a published adventure for 4E that wasn't really more than "play a guessing game with skill checks until you get the right one."

- More Sandbox.  Sometimes it's nice to have encounters or encounter areas (and they don't have to be combat ones) that are not, or only tangentially related to the main adventure.  That provides the DM much more opportunity to freelance, come up with different motivations, and tie in to a specific campaign.  Think of the various wilderness encounters in the original _Keep on the Borderlands_.  They weren't essentially, and had a few hints thrown their way, but offered the DM a lot of creative flexibility.  Sometimes, the adventurers just need to be handed a blank map labeled "Here Be There Monsters."

Of recent adventures, only Trollhaunt Warrens stands out to me as something I wanted to run (still a choo-choo, though).  The 3E/3.5E era were better on average -- excellent designs such as Red Hand of Doom, Forge of Fury ... but Paizo (particularly when they were running Dungeon) beats the pants off of you.


----------



## Riley (Mar 5, 2010)

delericho said:


> I would also strongly advocate taking another good look at the "Delve" format. The 4e version is much better than the 3e version, it's true, but I still find that it makes the adventures too rigid in construction - encounters all have a certain pattern to them, monsters never move from one location to another (and, worse, always remain in the same space until encountered), and so on. In theory, I'm a fan of the format; in practice, I have grown to loathe it.




This.  Also, if you have only 32 pages in your adventure, you _really_ don't want to use 2 pages per encounter.  Yes for a couple setpieces, but try to trust your DM a bit on some of the lesser encounters.


----------



## Rechan (Mar 5, 2010)

Riley said:


> This.  Also, if you have only 32 pages in your adventure, you _really_ don't want to use 2 pages per encounter.  Yes for a couple setpieces, but try to trust your DM a bit on some of the lesser encounters.



Yes! In fact, look at what they did in the Trollhaunt adventure. The "Additional Trollhaunt Encounters". You have multiple encounter suggestions on a single page! 

This is one way to handle the non-essential encounters, suggestions to "flesh out this area at your choice". 

If the adventure is 32 pages, don't be so focused on getting folks to level up 3 levels. Go 1 level, and give them the additional encounter suggestions if they want to beef up.


----------



## ScottS (Mar 5, 2010)

ArcaneSpringboard said:


> I'm just reading Labyrinth of Madness (from 2e) for converting it to 4e. I don't see anything even _remotely_ like it in 4e. Puzzles have been completely missing from 4e as far as I can tell.




There's a collect-the-pieces tangram puzzle in Sceptre Tower of Spellgard... which is pretty bad. (The mod essentially tells you to construct the puzzle yourself based on a verbal description and an rough artist's sketch, although based on the sizes, I gather you were supposed to use the backs of Dungeon Tiles or something. The parts list itself is slightly off. Finally, the puzzle itself is pretty trivial due to one of the pieces having a "unique shape"...)


----------



## Riley (Mar 5, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Yes! In fact, look at what they did in the Trollhaunt adventure. The "Additional Trollhaunt Encounters". You have multiple encounter suggestions on a single page!




Didn't they do something very similar in Demon Queen's Enclave?  I seem to remember that there were a great bunch of ideas crammed in there - and then unfortunately the rest of the adventure left much less of an impression on me.


----------



## The_Gneech (Mar 5, 2010)

Is that like the NPC plot tangents hinted at in _Thunderspire Labyrinth_ that tended to be more interesting than the actual story?  I think we may be seeing a pattern here.

-The Gneech


----------



## Hussar (Mar 5, 2010)

Just a fairly broad suggestion here since I think (for once) the community is pretty much unanimous on what they want (less linear, less combat).

What I would like to see in modules is better use of maps.  Currently, what we generally get is a single, static picture of the adventure location - the delve format places the monsters in a given room at a given point in time.  I think you could have a few maps - small ones only for the DM - that show how the adventure location reacts to invasion. 

You'd need three maps - the baseline "at rest" map, a "The alarm has just rung, where is everyone going " map and a "High alert" map.  You can place all the monsters directly on these maps and draw routes for how they move.  

As it stands, most maps at best show monsters and furniture and traps.  Maps make an excellent visual resource for detailing much more information than that without greatly increasing page count.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 5, 2010)

I'd just like to mention one element which I think hasn't been touched on very much so far: DM advice.

No matter how good your adventures are, remember that all of them, almost without exception, have to be filtered through DMs. Hence, anything that can help the DM do a better job at bringing out the interesting aspects of an encounter or an adventure will have a significant effect on how the adventure is received.

One good example was the issue mentioned by *mshea* and *Mustrum_Ridcully* of making it very clear, perhaps in a separate section, how elements of the adventure (encounters, locations, NPCs, items, information, etc.) link to another, e.g. how items or information gained from one encounter could be useful in another. Ideally, this information should be presented both when the element is first encountered and when it is eventually used so that it is easier for the DM to cross-reference.

Similarly, in order to counter the problem mentioned by some of the other posters that encounters are dull, repetitive or not meaningful, you could provide the following information and advice to the DM:
1. What is at stake in this encounter (beyond PC survival)? What happens if the PCs fail to overcome it? How can this information be communicated to the PCs?

2. What is distinctive or interesting about this encounter that would make it stand out from the other encounters in the adventure? How can the DM bring out or emphasize the distinctive or interesting elements? If it is a monster's special ability, how should the DM ensure that it is used in a way that maximizes its impact? If it is a terrain element, how can the DM ensure that the PCs are aware of it and deal with it? (Even if that means staying well away from it.)

3. Perhaps more broadly, what is the purpose of this encounter? What sort of feelings, emotions or thoughts should the DM be trying to evoke in the players, and how should he do it? If it is meant to be a simple encounter for the players to beat down on inferior opponents and feed good about themselves, how should the DM describe the opponents' appearance and reactions? If it is meant to be the climactic encounter of the adventure or campaign arc, how can the DM ensure that tension remains high until the final blow (whichever the winning side happens to be) is struck?​And perhaps the acid test for any encounter should be: if there isn't much at stake, there isn't anything distinctive, and it doesn't have much purpose, then it shouldn't even be in the adventure in the first place!


----------



## diaglo (Mar 5, 2010)

FireLance said:


> I'd just like to mention one element which I think hasn't been touched on very much so far: DM advice.!




this should go without saying. but maybe it is an art that has been lost over the last 30+ years.

the adventure in the hands of the DM is for the DM to read and adjust for his group and campaign.

adventures aren't meant to be purchased and read by every tom, dick and harry. it kills the suspension.

the whole adventure should be DM advice.


----------



## El Mahdi (Mar 5, 2010)

deleted


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Mar 5, 2010)

_*Humour*_

not necessarily "silliness" but grim, manical, explosive or just plain "I didn't expect THAT to explode in the BBEG's hand!" kind of thing 
adventurers would tend to enjoy such...it hugely helps the feel of a game.

hey throw in some classic movie quotes, like findining a torurer in the midst of his work about to get "Lecktor-ish" with a fave NPC:
_"Don't worry honey, it won't hurt till it hits the bone!"_ 

oh and mayhem, big fizzing tub thumping caught in the middle of a massive street fight/war etc mayhem.
Think "Big Touble In Little China"
oh and that's  ANOTHER thing:
_
visuals!!!! _the beauty, weird wonderous nature of settings: atmosphere...


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 5, 2010)

Others have already covered a lot of major changes that can be of great help. I have a some suggestions for a stylistic shift that would make me interested in buying modules again. 


*Don't Tell a story:*

Present the situation, the background, the powers that are important and thier plans, resources and goals. Outline briefly a likely course of events assuming no PC interference. Get the PC's introduced to this situation and let THEM drive the ultimate story rather than ride along in the back seat. 

*Don't pre-define encounter types:*
Provide details on who and what are where (and when) and that along with the previously mentioned plans and goals will determine the nature of the encounter in question. Not everything with combat stats has to be fought and players might get irritated with someone during a skill challenge and decide its time for an ass whuppin. 

Pretty much let events flow naturally as the actions of the players dictate. 

*Tone down the use of combat soundstages:*
Its bad enough to dictate combat scenes but having a large number of them in these far fetched American Gladiator arenas of death is just too much. The combats feel like what they end up becoming-fake exhibitions for the benefit of a studio audience. Dynamic combats are a 4E strength but adventures designed with that as a central concept end up looking like movie scripts. 

The impact of a really cool and memorable exotic location for the action gets lost if this stuff gets overused. 


Thanks for listening. This is a very cool thread.


----------



## AlioTheFool (Mar 5, 2010)

[FONT=&quot]As evidenced by the responses you’re getting, there is no “correct” answer. You’ll never please everyone with a published adventure. So I’m going to throw a radical idea out that I’ve yet to see anyone suggest: Scrap the published adventures altogether! I say this seriously. In lieu of these, what I suggest is a D&D Minis package. A handful of minis (for the sake of the argument with minions of common quality, brutes of uncommon quality, elites of rare quality and an additional large for a BBEG.) These would be in a non-randomized package (and I understand the issues of miniatures. I’ve often argued in WotC’s favor for the randomness, however, we’re talking about a product costing $25-$30 USD, so that removes the “cheap” from the cheap, non-random, pre-painted choose two argument.)[/FONT]

 [FONT=&quot]In addition to the minis, include either a small set of Dungeon Tiles specifically designed to use for encounters with the included minis, or a nice poster map. Lastly, include stat cards for the minis like those that currently come with the random packs.[/FONT]

 [FONT=&quot]When a DM pops open this package they should be able to simply look quickly through the cards to design a quick encounter, throw down some tiles or the map, and have everyone roll initiative. This product offers great reusability (especially if you include Dungeon Tiles.)[/FONT]

 [FONT=&quot]If the above isn't reasonable then I have two suggestions:[/FONT]

 [FONT=&quot]1) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]If you’re really that committed to continuing them, follow the path laid a long time ago. Back in the old Red Box there was an adventure that sent the PCs after Bargle. After the initial encounters, once the PCs entered the castle, it was more like a Choose Your Own Adventure book. The map’s rooms were numbered, and those numbers had a place in the book that the DM flipped to whenever the party entered the corresponding room. Adventures are far too linear these days. I don’t mind having a storyline, but I don’t want the players to be railroaded simply because I’m following the book.

[/FONT]  [FONT=&quot]2)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Instead of full adventures, just publish more Dungeon Delve books. Give us more encounters for each level of play that we DMs can simply plug into our own games. Some tiny background is more than enough to spark the imagination and get the DM’s wheels rolling. [/FONT]


----------



## bugpog (Mar 5, 2010)

Here's three suggestion that would make my group go back to Dnd 4th edition : 

1) Bring back famous villains 

I would buy any adventure that would feature one of the following villain on the cover : Lord Soth, Strahd, Vecna, Azalin Rex, Szass Tam, Cyric, etc.  It's make the adventure fun to read and play.  Plus, chances are the player's will love the story.  

Adventure example : I6 Ravenloft, Die Vecna Die

2) Bring back famous character's

Why not create a story that revolves around the ressurection of Ellistrae, Elminster's death, Drizzt's dissaperance, release of Cyric, the people vs Szass Tam, etc.  You don't need to flesh out the entire world the villain is set in, only a small part of it will do.  

Adventure example : Bleak house, The Waukken rescue quest (I forgot the name), 

3) Additionnal content available in DnD Insider is a must.  It acts as a preview (or teaser) for those who haven't brought the quest and helps flesh out the adventure more.

Example : The additionnal content for Thunderspire labyrinth.

Hopes this helps.


----------



## Truename (Mar 5, 2010)

You've gotten a lot of responses, but I want to provide more specific examples. I DM'd the entire Scales of War heroic tier with my group. At the end, I was completely sick of it and switched to ENWorld's War of the Burning Sky. (Now I'm considering letting my DDI subscription lapse because I'm not getting enough from it.) We've played about half of the first WotBS adventure, The Scouring of Gate Pass, so that's what I'll use in my examples. SoGP has its flaws, but it's good enough that I can fill in the gaps myself.

*Too much combat, not enough everything else*

A lot of people have mentioned this, but I wanted to reinforce it. With the exception of The Temple Between, every adventure in SoW was just one combat encounter after another. There's minimal exploration, minimal dungeon dressing (except SoW 1, but even that was fairly meaningless), and minimal NPC interaction. Every night, like clockwork, my group fought through two combat encounters.

In contrast, with SoGP, our typical night is about half roleplay and half combat. There's just more to do. In our first session, we started with a fight, then spent the rest of the session with 4 non-combat mini-encounters that really kept the players' interest and evoked the atmosphere of a town under siege.

In SoW, my group leveled up about once a month. In SoGP, we're achieving about the same rate because of non-combat related experience. I'd like to see less combat in WoTC adventures, but keep the same leveling rate.

*Lack of meaningful choices*

SoW adventures lack meaningful consequences. The worst example of this was in The Temple Between. It uses a victory point system, and by the end of the adventure, 



Spoiler



the town


 can be completely destroyed, badly damaged, or unscathed. But in the next adventure, there's no mention of this at all! Although there was the illusion of consequences, there were no actual consequences. And The Temple Between is actually better than most. A lot of SoW adventures don't even provide an option. They're utterly linear. 

In contrast, SoGP has been filled with meaningful choices. The players can choose to help or not help in the mini-quests in Scene 1-3; the MacGuffin in the adventure can be recovered or not--and later adventures account for that fact; the MacGuffin can be opened and its contents revealed; the middle of the adventure can be played in any number of ways; Scene 3-4 allows the party to make an ally or an enemy, and that has consequences in a later adventure; there are a full 8 options mentioned for escaping the city; Scene 4-1 allows the players to circumvent the entire encounter by 



Spoiler



arriving early


. Option after option after option. It's why I love War of the Burning Sky.

The next adventure, Fire Forest of Innenotdar, is even better. The party 



Spoiler



faces a major moral dilemma


--and both choices are fully fleshed out!

*Dearth of NPCs*

There are hardly any NPCs in Scales of War, and the ones that there are are one-dimensional. They're exposition, lacking personality or reason for existence beyond their pre-scripted lines. Take The Shadow Rift of Umbraforge, for example. There are perhaps six NPCs in that adventure, but there's never any reason for the PCs to interact with them, other than to hear their lines. There's no provision for the PCs to change their minds or actually _interact_. And there's no information about their personalities or _why_ they're doing what they're doing and what they hope to accomplish.

In contrast, SoGP has 12 significant NPCs and several dozen more minor NPCs. I was able to take one of those minor NPCs and flesh him out into a major sub-plot, based on what the adventure provided me. Most of them are interesting characters with complex motivations. 



Spoiler



Kathor Denava


 is a good example, he's a "bad guy," but conflicted and someone that PCs could turn to their side. 



Spoiler



Erdan Manash


 is colorful and interesting, and fun to play. 



Spoiler



Haddin Ja-Laffa


 and 



Spoiler



Crystin Ja-Nafeel


 share a complex, dysfunctional relationship that gives the players reason to put up with someone they would normally kill in a moment.

*Boring skill challenges*

This is really a problem with skill challenges in general. They're generally written as a list of skills with the results of each skill described. This turns them into a game of "guess the skill and roll the dice." I want to describe a scenario for my players that they can respond to. I want them to focus on their actions, not which skills they're using. And I want the skill challenge to tell me how the scenario changes with each success or failure.

For example, in Siege of Bordrin's Watch, there's a skill challenge when the players are 



Spoiler



traversing the vents


. I found that very difficult to narrate--it was clear that my exposition was meaningless, and all that mattered was the rolls. Instead, I want something like this, but dressed up and expanded: "the characters can choose a route that emphasizes narrow ledges (acrobatics DC 10, group check) or steep cliffs (athletics DC 10, group check). A passive dungeoneering DC 15 roll reveals a narrow crevice that opens up into an easier path (automatic success). If they fail, they fall and lose one healing surge for every five points that they fail a DC 20 Endurance check. Later, they hear strange chittering noises. Nature DC 15 allows them to identify the creatures as bats and avoid spooking them. Dungeoneering DC 15 discovers animal droppings and highlights a safe route. Failure leads to bats swarming ahead of the PCs and alerting the orcs in Encounter X that the PCs are coming..."

A further problem is that the overall penalty for failure in a skill challenge is generally, "you succeed, but lose a healing surge." or "You succeed, but have another combat." That's hardly a penalty. Let's see some real consequences!

Unfortunately, I can't point to a skill challenge that I've liked. The skill challenges in SoGP are just as bad. Kevin Kulp had some interesting stuff in Haven of the Bitter Glass, but my group never made it that far, and even those suffered from the "lack of consequences" problem. You can influence the political make-up of 



Spoiler



the council


, but absolutely nothing changes as a result.

*Too balanced*

Every single combat in Scales of War ranges from character level (N) + 0 to N+3. Sometimes slightly higher. Each one is designed to be defeated. Each level has 10 treasure parcels, and the PCs are expected to find every one. Each adventure follows a fairly predictable pacing model, starting with N+0 and N+1 encounters and gradually ramping up to the big N+3 fight.

It made my players complacent. They just hacked their way through everything. In SoGP, things aren't as safe. There are combats that the PCs aren't supposed to be able to win. They have to pay attention to what's going on. For example, Scene 2-7 features an elite opponent who is N+8! In fairness, this would have been a boring combat and I'm glad my players didn't get into that fight, but the principle is still there.

A related problem is that every combat encounter is designed to be a fight. There's no provision for diplomacy or clever solutions in SoW. In contrast, take a look at Scene 3-3 of SoGP. My players defeated that encounter without raising a finger or rolling initiative, just by being verbally aggressive and figuring out that the enemies 



Spoiler



wouldn't attack as long as the PCs stayed out in the crowd


.

*Good things*

SoW's big strength is its set-piece battles. The conclusion of Siege of Bordrin's Watch was excellent. I loved the maps in The Temple Between, even though I hated drawing them. I've heard that Beyond the Mottled Tower is excellent. I hope you'll keep this.

Also, I'm a big fan of the delve format. More connecting tissue would be nice, but I like being able to run an entire combat with the two-page spread open in front of me. There just needs to be more non-combat stuff ahead of it.


----------



## Truename (Mar 5, 2010)

*Lack of context*

Oh, one more thing. SoGP provides me with _lots_ of background and context. Check out the sidebars scattered liberally through the adventure. I've found this invaluable because it allows me to create new plot elements based on the PC's actions. This makes them feel like _they're_ driving the story, not just following the plot.

In contrast, Scales of War is very light on context. The best example is The Lost Mines of Karak. They encountered 



Spoiler



an old man with canaries


 during that adventure. It was clear that he had some sort of special meaning, but nothing in the adventure alluded to who he was, what he was doing there, or what his goals were. He was mysterious, which naturally aroused my players' interest, but I didn't have any ability to roleplay him. I just did 'generally kooky' because I didn't know any better.

It wasn't until 



Spoiler



the final epic tier adventure


 was published that I learned the old man was 



Spoiler



Bahamut


. My characterization was completely off-base, and if I knew then what I knew now, I would have played him completely differently.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 5, 2010)

Lots of solid advice in this thread.
*Villains*
This is a big 'un.

Without compelling threats, there is no compelling _adventure_.
Compare: That dude in _Keep on the Shadowfell_, with Kazyk in WOTBS2. 
[sblock]

Your villain has a history, a personality and goals. It works towards it's goals, doing bad things along the way according to its personality. Its history helps inform the PC's, and perhaps helps them take it down.

Your villain has _desires_, and it is active in pursuing them. If the PC's fail, the villain accomplishes these desires. Death is not the only way to hurt the party, and, as you get closer to the climax, more should be at stake. The villain should not sit in one place and wait for people to come and kill it. It should _act_. 

: Your villain needs to _cast a shadow_. More than just name-dropping, it should actually and actively shape the world around it. It should link to themes, and it should employ these themes effectively, though not homogeneously. 
[/sblock]
*Sensible Combat*
Also a big one. 

When using combats, keep logic in mind.
Compare: ...almost any Scales of War adventure with, let's say, the fights that happen in a typical action movie. There is no conflict that does not have an origin, and a purpose.
[sblock]

Some fights should be too hard to win. These should be telegraphed, and PC's should avoid them. 

Some fights should be too weak to bother with. Again, this should be telegraphed, and PC's should want to avoid them (they're just a distraction from the Real Problem). 

: The fights that are "just right" shouldn't be repetitive. Each combat should directly accomplish some goal. 
[/sblock]
*Hire Me to Write Them*
Seriously. I'm kind of a genius. 
[sblock]

The first adventure I ever wrote won me an adventure writing contest

I went on to participate in the brilliant _War of the Burning Sky_ CS. Most of those adventures are dynamite. 

I will do it on the cheap, because I like you guys.
[/sblock]

Er, but generally, 

*More Drama*. Things are at stake. PC's can fail. Towns can burn to the ground. Families can get killed. Evil can win (and is always _just about to do so_). 
*More Variety*. Things don't have the same solution every time. Combat is great maybe 60-75% of the time, not ALL THE TIME. 
*More Flow*. 3-act structure. It applies to sandboxes as easily as narrative games. Know it, learn it, use it. Know what it means to actually finish an act (and how that changes the ongoing events), and how to effectively increase tension in Act 2. 

But if you just hire me, I'll do all that for you.


----------



## Relthar (Mar 5, 2010)

For 4th edition I have only run Keep on the Shadowfell and most of Thunderspire Labyrinth. I am planning on running the Scales of War Adventure Path very soon.

First I must say, please ditch the delve format. I prefer the older, pre-delve style of adventure presentation. I know many are fans for the format, but it has caused me a number of headaches as I flip back and forth between the encounter information and the overall dungeon information (sometimes in different books). I understand and appreciate the idea behind the delve format (have all the relevant information for the encounter in one place), but in practice it has not lived up to that ideal. The best
example I have is the encounter with Murkelmor in Thunderspire Labyrinth.
[sblock] Of the enemies in that encounter, he is the only one who knows about the secret door on one side of the room. This information is only listed in the dungeon overview 12 pages before the encounter information. It should have been included in the tactics section of the encounter as well. The fact that he uses the door is in that tactics listing, just not that he's the only one who knows about it. As DM I considered this a fairly key piece of information, and in practice the lack of said information where it should have been nearly caused a TPK.[/sblock]
There are a few others I've come across, but the above sticks out in my mind the most. Going along with the above about information begin split up, I also dislike having the adventure information split between two books. Revenge of the Giants was a welcome return to a one book format.

I think more story needs to be added to the adventures. As others here have stated, the WotC modules seem to be very combat heavy. More story and/or background information to help flesh out the setting of the module would be a great addition. I found the FR conversions for H1 and H2 to help in that regard, but the baseline adventures could have been better.  To go along with this, I would love to see more descriptive text. Too often the sparse information presented in each encounter does not paint a very interesting picture.

Going back to the idea of campaign setting conversions for WotC adventures, I'd love to see more of these for the published settings. I especially think such conversions would be immensely useful for Adventure Paths, but as noted above, ones for the published adventures are also welcome. DDI is the perfect vehicle for presenting such conversions (such as the aforementioned H1 and H2 conversions in Dungeon).

Another thing the adventures suffer from is a lack of internal consistency. I agree with others here in that very often the encounters seem to be placed simply because something in them is "really cool" with no thought to how they should fit into the overall feel or theme of the adventure. My primary example here is the temple/shrine of Bahamut before meeting Sir Keegan in H1.
[sblock]What is the temple of a good aligned deity doing with undead guardians? I ran the module, like many others, as the first introduction to the 4E rules, and left it as is.  This particular room seriously broke the immersion of my players as it did not make any sense to any of them. And when all was said and done I agreed with them: it lacked some serious consistency. To my group, undead guardians do not mesh with shrine of Bahamut.[/sblock]
A secondary example comes from H2.
[sblock]In Interlude 2, Paldemar sends the PCs an anonymous note to get them to come to a meeting which is ultimately a trap. The idea of it is fine, but the following text I could not in good conscience read to my players: "I am in a position of power in the evil organization behind the duergar's actions..." That part of the sentence is, to my mind, exceedingly cheesy and an example of poor writing. Primarily I don't consider it consistent with something a very smart villain (Paldemar) would write in an attempt to lure the PCs into a trap, unless he's trying to communicate "It's a trap!"[/sblock]
Skill Challenges. I get the idea behind them, and I like that idea, but the ones in H1 and H2 are far too forced. They seem to have been shoe-horned in just to have a skill challenge for a non-combat encounter. The one in H1 was just poor design overall, and in my mind should not even have been a skill challenge. The one in H2 suffered from not having enough information about the three NPCs in their description to role-play them properly.  Some of that information was moved to the skill checks area.[sblock]The elf wizard, for example, lies to the PCs via false boasts, but you only find this out under the Insight skill. This should have been with the NPC description.[/sblock]

Overall a good adventure, to me, has a balance of combat and non-combat interaction, needs to be internally consistent, and have enough story/background to draw the players and their characters in and keep their interest until the end.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 5, 2010)

Hussar said:


> What I would like to see in modules is better use of maps.  Currently, what we generally get is a single, static picture of the adventure location - the delve format places the monsters in a given room at a given point in time.  I think you could have a few maps - small ones only for the DM - that show how the adventure location reacts to invasion.
> 
> You'd need three maps - the baseline "at rest" map, a "The alarm has just rung, where is everyone going " map and a "High alert" map.  You can place all the monsters directly on these maps and draw routes for how they move.



Somebody else upthread mentioned the idea of transparent overlays; could they be the answer here?

Lanefan


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Mar 5, 2010)

ScottS said:


> There's a collect-the-pieces tangram puzzle in Sceptre Tower of Spellgard... which is pretty bad. (The mod essentially tells you to construct the puzzle yourself based on a verbal description and an rough artist's sketch, although based on the sizes, I gather you were supposed to use the backs of Dungeon Tiles or something. The parts list itself is slightly off. Finally, the puzzle itself is pretty trivial due to one of the pieces having a "unique shape"...)






Truename said:


> Unfortunately, I can't point to a skill challenge that I've liked. The  skill challenges in SoGP are just as bad. Kevin Kulp had some  interesting stuff in Haven of the Bitter Glass, but my group never made  it that far, and even those suffered from the "lack of consequences"  problem. You can influence the political make-up of
> 
> 
> 
> ...




In response to these comments, I will point out that Monument to the Ancients in Dragon 170 had a pretty good skill challenge/puzzle thing that you two might appreciate.  I haven't run it, but it looks pretty well thought out.

[sblock]The PCs have a MacGuffin that consists of 9 glyphs and an object with unlabeled slots for each.  They can determine where a particular glyph should go via a skill challenge played out over the course of days, with some general use skills and some that will only work for particular glyphs, and can also get auto-successes by obtaining information elsewhere in the module. Each success also earns them a journal entry of flavor text, which helps shift the focus away from "Roll a skill check to not eat dirt."

Anywho, in the final battle, they need to have all 9 glyphs in the right place to send the big bad packing for good.  Whatever they didn't figure out in advance can be done during battle via what is basically a game of Mastermind, so a party that performed well and planted 7 of the glyphs in advance will have an easier time of things than the party that has 1 glyph figured out and has to futz with the last 8 at random.

Admittedly I haven't read up enough to know if there's a reasonable justification as to why "guess and check" wouldn't work in the days leading up to the combat.[/sblock]
And Rodney, on the off chance that anyone around the office says "Why do they want less combat after we went and put so much effort into making an awesome combat engine?" I would remind them that one of the big steps forward for 4E was getting us away from needing 4 encounters per day to keep things on an even keel.  Please let us use the wonderful innovation of _not_ needing to pad our adventures with 3 more fights than we actually intended to use!


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Mar 5, 2010)

Well I've read the thread and I agree with the less combat but I want mapped empty space with interesting description of those places. 
So my tuppence worth: I have run Keep on the Shadowfell, Thunderspire and Rescue at Rivenroar.
In my opinon, Rescue at Rivenroar is the weakest, and it has kind of put me off the Scales of War adventure path. I though that a lot of the encounter were filler and not relevant.
The whole place is a stupid spot for a putative army to hang out in. Its indefensible. There should be an army encamped nearby, use a skill challenge to bypass. Some reason to search the ruin and a reason for the alliance with the Undead.

I would reinforce the idea that there should be non combat ways to bypass encounters. Also I would like to see rituals incorporated into the adventures.
Thunderspire had a good example of a ritual use in the evil side where the gnoll (was it? I do not have the adventure handy right now) was trying to sustain a ritual while the party was trying to stop him. He succeeded in my case with his dying breath. However, also use custom rituals as the NcGuffin that the pcs have to complete to stop Bad Things Happening.
Maybe even duelling rituals.

On the format, I like the delve format, however pulling all the stat blocks for a combat in a separate booklet from the enounter flavour text and map would work as well. Pull out overview maps would be really nice.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Mar 5, 2010)

FireLance said:


> 1. What is at stake in this encounter (beyond PC survival)? What happens if the PCs fail to overcome it? How can this information be communicated to the PCs?
> 
> 2. What is distinctive or interesting about this encounter that would make it stand out from the other encounters in the adventure? How can the DM bring out or emphasize the distinctive or interesting elements? If it is a monster's special ability, how should the DM ensure that it is used in a way that maximizes its impact? If it is a terrain element, how can the DM ensure that the PCs are aware of it and deal with it? (Even if that means staying well away from it.)
> 
> 3. Perhaps more broadly, what is the purpose of this encounter? What sort of feelings, emotions or thoughts should the DM be trying to evoke in the players, and how should he do it? If it is meant to be a simple encounter for the players to beat down on inferior opponents and feed good about themselves, how should the DM describe the opponents' appearance and reactions? If it is meant to be the climactic encounter of the adventure or campaign arc, how can the DM ensure that tension remains high until the final blow (whichever the winning side happens to be) is struck?​And perhaps the acid test for any encounter should be: if there isn't much at stake, there isn't anything distinctive, and it doesn't have much purpose, then it shouldn't even be in the adventure in the first place!




QFT.

My understanding/conceptualization of WotC adventures (both past and present) to other companies has been as Budweiser is to microbrews (hear me out here).

Budweiser is not a great beer. It's palatable and innofensive. Anyone can drink a bud, but few REALLY enjoy it. Why? Budweiser shoots for generic and volume of sales. They're the big guys. Microbrews, similar to 3pp publishers, can focus on more specific "flavors" that appeal to some, but just aren't someone else's cup of tea (beer). So I see WotC as "ok, but not great" for everyone. I think PART of that is the nature of the beast...being the biggest company and working in volume. 

But let me belabor the analogy a bit more.  Sam adams was a microbrew. I'd now put them on the same level as Budweiser (not in total sales, but in availablility in bars and liquor stores). It's a better beer, still innofensive, and wins multiple awards. How do they do it? As has been stated in this thread: variety and depth. 1. Variety. There are multiple "flavors" available from them. Imagine, for adventures, this being separate "Themes". I'd like to see Dungeon change to the "adventure of the month club." This month? Underwater. Next month espionage. The following month horror. After that-gladiator ring encounters. 2. Depth. This is a quality beer. It's evident that, no matter how mass produced it is, they seem to put the extra money into making it of sufficient quality. It costs more, but only a little more, than Bud. The price difference is made up for easily by the quality difference. I submit that better maps, better layout, more attention to/better plot etc are important in WotC adventures. Throwing combats/encounters in left and right leaves an adventure "watered down."

Finally, look to your competitors. I'll fork this thread, and edit in the link in just a moment.
EDIT. Look here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...d-4th-edition-adventures-why.html#post5109592


----------



## MerricB (Mar 5, 2010)

Truename said:


> He was mysterious, which naturally aroused my players' interest, but I didn't have any ability to roleplay him. I just did 'generally kooky' because I didn't know any better.
> 
> It wasn't until
> 
> ...




Actually, your characterisation was completely on-base if you've ever seen the Dragonlance take on the character. 

Cheers!


----------



## jhallum (Mar 5, 2010)

Truename said:


> *Lack of context*
> 
> In contrast, Scales of War is very light on context. The best example is The Lost Mines of Karak. They encountered
> 
> ...




To be fair, this information was also presented in a sidebar in another hardback, I think, almost 4-6 months before the Epic adventure was released.  I couldn't tell you where, exactly, as I'm at work and I don't have the books in front of me.    Of course, in my game, the heroes completely avoided those areas of the mines, thus missing the warning and at that point, any reason for an encounter with the Old Man.  I'm now in Temple Between and am thinking about having the Old Man show up in Bitter Glass for other reasons, but still in the background.


----------



## Windjammer (Mar 5, 2010)

That 'Old Man' you talk about appeared in _Draconomicon 2_, final section. Nice 6 page section, in many regards the thematic core of the book.

And I totally agree with Merric that the poster portrayed him in the best possible way, if you go by the Dragonlance Chronicles for point of orientation (and I'd be hard pressed to think of a better reference point here).


----------



## Nebulous (Mar 5, 2010)

Rodney, in 4e i've run Shadowfell Keep, Thunderspire Labyrinth, Pyramid of Shadows, and a large number of one-offs and homebrew adventures added to the mix.

I have to say that the quality of the overall stories is...Average, puncutated by some really, really awesome set pieces. 

In my opinion here are some things you need to change (and this is not exhaustive):

1) Encounter Format.  Why does it have to be only two pages? What if there is enough material for only 1 page or 4 pages?  Also, scrap the two book thing and meld plot and mechanics so that the book is actually more fun to READ. 

2) Monster stat blocks: while it can be handy to have the block right there (and it is) i've seen cases where the SAME monster is printed throughout a book and it wastes too much space.  What about an electronic download for DDI customers (or for free) that bundles all stats for a module into one place? 

3) INCOMPLETE VILLAINS!  
   This happened with Kalarel, Paldemar and Karavakos. All three were sketchy outlines with little motivation, or a complex motivation in the case of Karavakos (the whole trapped in the Pyramid of Shadows as punishment but with full powers and a nice life just didn't make sense).  I had to add so much to all three adventures to make the villains more compelling, including elevating Paldemar to the BBEG at the end of Thunderspire, have him live, be the villain through all of Pyramid of Shadows, live at the end, and he's now an ongoing villain in the paragon tier. 

4) more as i muse about it....AH!  Skill Challenges!  I really hate to say that after all the effort WotC has put into skill challenges, i think the whole system is overshadowed by Obsidian that a clever Enworlder made up.  Wotc SC's, for me, require a big laundry list of memorization and referencing the book. The bigger the challenge, the more complex. 

Obsidian scraps that with a 3-round process that forces players to create the situation and what happens with simple accumulation of success, no failures (or rather failures just don't count). I have found that it creates great tension and roleplaying and there is nothing for me to reference as it all unfolds in real time.

5) *Too much friggin combat*.
  I cut out 50% of the encounters in Pyramid of Shadows and finished it in 9 sessions. Even then i got some moans of "when the hell are we getting out of this horrible place?"

6) Monster and Encounter Tactics
So many, many times the descriptive text will say something like "The troglodyte waits until an enemy is near and uses Stench. Other troglodytes then advance and attack with spears.  There is a bed that can flipped over to offer cover and counts as difficult terrain."

Now this isn't bad exactly, but it is really just rehashing the basics of a monster attack that every single DM is going to use anyway! Unless the monster is going to specifically use terrain or powers or items in abnormal fashion, i'd leave that part out.  But i'm just complaining, that's not a as big a deal as some of my other points.


----------



## Nebulous (Mar 5, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Oh, I just remembered a more "minor" thing - sometimes I don't understand what's supposed to be going on. This can apply to weird trap descriptions (I still don't know  how the trap with the Otyough in the Pyramid is supposed to work - Understand the mechanic, but not the visuals) or to PC powers whose names are not sufficient to explain or visualize the effect.




Oh my God, i know. I had to draw a picture just to explain it to myself before i could even start to tell the players and i STILL don't know if i did it right.  This really, really, really needed a diagram!

Believe it or not, a full strength 8th level barbarian died in that pit in 2 rounds all by himself.


----------



## Skyscraper (Mar 5, 2010)

WotC has been doing great stuff with rules and layout, but I admit to not liking several among the adventures I've read (mostly, 3E stuff e.g. Ravenloft, some Dungeon DDI adventures, Keep on the Shadowfell and now I'm playing through Scales of War but it's early to judge - we're finishing Rivenroar) due to story and general pace.

Random thoughts (I haven't read through this long thread, sorry for repeats):

- I don't like the structured encounters, i.e. not only do we know when and where PCs will be attacked by monsters, but each monster's position is already defined at the start of combat. I mean: what if the players' decisions actually mattered? Railroad has never been more obvious IMO.

Proposed solution: have some encounters be predefined, but leave some open-ended. E.g. Encounter A will occur only if condition 1 is met; Encounter B will only include X, Y, Z creatures if the PCs managed to do this or that beforehand; Encounter C will occur somewhere in the castle, if the PCs are not stealthy enough (no pre-prepared plan for this one!); Encounter D will occur if the PCs have befriended NPC #5; Encounter E is left to the DM has a option to change the pace, lay an ambush, add a guard patrol, in case the DM feels like PCs should have a confrontation with the group of (guards, cultists, thieves, ...); ...

- NPCs not credible. Reading through Ravenloft (3E) for example, there is a village rampaged by undead, and when the PCs arrive at the barricaded Inn, what's going on? They hear song and laugher. I mean, WTF? Those people should be scared witless. Or, in Keep of the Shadowfell: they rescue their mentor, he says thank you and leaves to return to see his wife. The guy was there to investigate a dragon grave (if I recall correctly) at the outset, and now he gets rescued and he's in a hurry to leave. There is no depth in this NPC IMO.

Proposed solution: get emotions to filter out of the NPCs. Fear at the threat, humiliation at not being able to do anything, those kind of emotions should transpire. I'm sure you have plenty of people with drama experience, use them! For example, the NPC mentor in Keep on the Shadowfell could have the option to leave to return to his wife, remain in town but be traumatised from his captivity, or become mad from captivity; or any other outcome the DM feels thinking about, the latter three being examples of why he won't join the PCs for the rest of the adventure.

- storyline too thin: was there a storyline in Ravenloft? Hehe. Just kidding. I found it a bit dull, but I'll use Keep on the Shadowfell as my example: there is nothing going on in town when the PCs arrive. Nothing. The only detail we have is about what NPCs know about the goblins and the kobolds and the keep itself. Do the NPCs have lives of their own?

Proposed solution: adding layers in the village itself would have been nice. Example: in the Shackled City adventure path (minor spoilers ahead), there are tons of lines lying all about the city of Cauldron for the PCs to pick up. Priests disappearing at the temple, nobles that have their respective agendas, two competing thieve guilds, rumors about dragons, paladins, etc... It's not just about the "keep near the village" and the DM can make the rest up.

Side note: even if the depth of the adenture will not become known to the players, the story has to be compelling for the DM at the outset. Forming a web interconnecting the NPCs is a good way to achieve that IMO. Getting the DM thrilled about the depth of the setting will in turn help the DM convey that feeling to the players.

- Avoid hollywood stereotypes and try to set up surprising settings where the paladin is not the goodie-two-shoes, the BBEG actually has a reason to be evil, he's not simply evil because he's evil; and surprising stories and settings.

Thanks for asking about this and I hope my opinion helps, although it is but one player's opinion.

Sky


----------



## invokethehojo (Mar 5, 2010)

nevermind


----------



## Riley (Mar 5, 2010)

invokethehojo said:


> This is unorthadox but I would love to see a campaign that is more free form and written around a starter town...
> 
> I used Fallcrest to do this.  I used the town exactly how it was, made a small (usually single session) adventure for each plot hook, then connected enough of them to make an overall story arc based around the machinations of a local lord that was attempting to ensue enough chaos in the area to usurp Lord Markelhay by weakening his political power base.  It was really fun to DM and the players really got into it, mostly I think because they kept coming back to the town and the relationships with the NPC's kept evolving.  Also, when it came time to save the town they felt a bond with the townsfolk, which made saving them feel compelling and meaningful.




Sounds like a great idea - kinda like Chaos Scar, but with continuity and NPC's.

I hoped that this was the kind of thing that Wizards might do with Hammerfast and the HS series, but it doesn't look like those will be connected in this manner.


----------



## Paul_Klein (Mar 5, 2010)

D&D modules are way too long. Someone above me just said they cut 50% of the combat encounters out of _Pyramid of Shadows_, and it still took them 9 sessions to finish. That is straight-up boring, no matter how exciting the set pieces inside are.  

If I pick up a module and see that not only will it take a dozen or so game sessions to finish, but it is also contained almost entirely in the same location - or worse, in the same dungeon - no way in heck am I going to buy and run that adventure. 

Next, I have to echo nearly everyone else, in that the WotC D&D modules contain little to no meaningful story, and what is there isn't really "cool" or "wow" or epic anyway, so it gets further pushed to the wayside. 

Honestly, my favorite "new" thing from WotC in terms of adventures and campaigns are the Campaign Arcs, seen in both DMG2 and SW Saga's _Galaxy of Intrigue_. These are not pre-written adventures or even campaigns, but give a basic, general overview of a campaign. I love these things, and get more excited when I read them about the millions of possibilities I can take and run with them, than I do with a 64-page adventure with 25 2-page detailed encounter spreads.


----------



## Goonalan (Mar 5, 2010)

First off the WOTC adventures that I have played H1-3 are good but for all the reasons mentioned above, not great. I own every adventure (4E & actually 3E, 3.5E) you've ever published, and I would say at least 90% of all 3rd Party adventures for all three editions, I've read them all.

My group play via maptools, it's the only game I can get in Grimsby, actually there is an official D&D club but they wont touch 4e, me I'm sold- from a DMs perspective it's much easier to run and just as enjoyable- thanks for that.

I initially ran Keep on the Shadowfell with a group but had to abandon it, mainly because of its structure (combat slog) and failure to excite the players. We all stopped playing 4e...

I picked up Goodman Games Sellswords of Punjar, tried again, and they loved it- why?

It's set in a city so the players can escape the dungeon and go and interact with others, advance their character stories and/or plot at any time, subject to the constraints of narrative of course but- no slog!

The bad guys were all a little different, as were the settings and interactions available- first up a trapped and locked gate,, and plenty of atmos...

“A rusted iron gate bars entrance to the alley. Over ten feet in height, the gate is topped by leering gargoyles and sharp spikes. The gate is secured with a rusted lock, cast in the face of a snarling devil. A trail of stinking sewage runs down the center of the alley, seeping past your boots and staining everything it touches.”

The gate has two traps on it, and a difficult lock- and the traps have been thought out, a hand-catcher, and spikes that fire up if a PC tries to climb it. Not a rolling ball then... (see Kobold Halls and H2).

And for those that can't get through the gate then five minutes in and the players are shimmying over wet rooftops- downloadable map available, out of their element and doing something different already, something that makes them think that they're adventurers. Particularly if they're on their first adventure.

The first encounter proper is a bunch of guards (I of course gave them characters) and on call a pair of Toughs- who instantly became dashing swordsmen, and offer easy roleplay opportunities. They're humans (not Kobolds as in H1), which makes them infinitely easier to engage in and with, particularly for neophytes, and therefore create an immersive environment..

Around the corner from the guards...

Grime and mud suck at your boots. A foul green miasma hangs in the night air, swirling about your feet. Large rats, covered in boils and weeping sores, hiss and retreat deeper into the alley.

And...

The fetid mist causes torches and lanterns to sputter and flare. Cast off by the poisonous fountain at the end of the alley (area 1–3), the mist clings to the skin and fills the air with the sharp taste of copper. Where it beads, the mist discolors the skin and burns holes in clothing.

Until the adventurers reach...

A decaying fountain stands at the end of the alley. Topped by a mold-covered figure, the basin overflows with rust-red water. Filth slithers down the side of the stained fountain, where it collects in a pool before worming its way down the alley.

The statue of course proves to be Orcus (with a nice handout to boot), it could be anyone, but if you're going to start a campaign- why not take a big bite, who knows where it may end (see H1 to E3).

Next up an uppity Thief who smart players swiftly realise is better off keeping alive, which leads to the players trying to capture and not kill him- he has a story, and more roleplay ensues. He's also situated in a shop full of all manner of weird and wonderful stuff (from an Orc Skull with gold teeth to a +2 Cloak of Resistance- there's a table, who doesn't smile a little when they see a table, for heaven sake; item is 7 is “A pair of leather shoes. Hidden in the sole of the right shoe is a set of masterwork thieves’ tools. Hidden in the sole of the left shoe is a single worn platinum piece. Minted in a by-gone age, the platinum piece is worth 100 gp to a collector.” The person who wrote this (Harley Stroh) clearly loves the game, and has ideas to burn- a DMs delight.

The Thief also guards a large chest with multiple traps, a code book and lots of nice little bits of treasure- great. He also advances the story. The Thief however calls on the Dogbrothers, a bunch of mangy mercenaries lead by Irocar (from memory). 

Which leads to a pumped up villain, and his cohort, calling out the PCs- bragging and the like- excellent character, my players reduced him to tears- begging to be spared and calling for his mother. Result- Irocar becomes a recurring villain- shamed by the adventurers, he plots his revenge. Not before advancing the narrative a little more.

Also in the area a Otyugh, admittedly only a little one, but a flailing terror that bathes in poo, I have to admit that Otyugh's are one of my favourite monsters, personally I think they are misunderstood and mainly just want to make friends with other poo producing species. But first adventure, second room... what a beauty. And if that's not enough for you Otyugh Grubs, admittedly they're only crawling minion horrors with not much in the way of offence or defence but...

As far as story, atmosphere and all round attention to detail, Sellswords has it in spades.

Also the combat encounters are short, or long if you want them to be- just drag the next bunch into the fight; in short they are easy to shape.

Next some emptyish rooms- more traps, a little more incidental treasure and plenty more in the way of mood and atmosphere, rooms players creep into not sure what's going to happen next, thoroughly investigate because it looks so tempting... because they're immersed, and don't mind that there's nothing much for them here because it pays to take a breath between acts of destruction. I could go on, find a copy of Todorov's Three Act Structure, point out the wiggly line (like a rollercoaster) that swoops and dives, only to climb again as the tension rises some more.

Next Madame Zeb a Tiefling Witch and a pair of Eunuchs, how about that- bloated fighting Eunuch's, what's not to like- and her room is full of all manner of strange junk; a scythe made from the fused bones of a Osyluth, an egg- can't remember of what; you get my drift...

And on it goes.

In contrast Shadowfell is just a series of encounters, mostly combat, with little option other than to fight- even for the roleplayers- Kobold/Hobgoblins/etc. munchkins that... attack. Nice maps, good quality finish, high production values but for the newbie fresh to the sport surely you've left the story out, the emotive/atmospheric language, the quirky tables, the crude hand outs- the attention to detail.

Sellswords is easy as to re-order or re-write- for those Dms who are telling a different campaign story, the level of detail- nudging the DM constantly with excellent ways in which to foreshadow things to come, plant clues or strange campaign spanning artefacts et al, create recurring villains; all in general to create an immersive environment.

Thunderspire was okay, memorable for the cool fights, some of the plot was meh- the note to the Tiefling ambush particularly was pretty dire, I can't imagine many parties were sold by this, it's just... lame.

The Pyramid, once again some great combat, but... see all of the above.

To summarise-

They don't join up- plot and story is secondary to cool (sometimes) combat.

They're a grind, a real grind in places, with very little opportunity to do anything other than battle the next monster that's standing in line.

There's a lack of an authorial voice, someone with a good idea (or thirty), who wants to create an immersive environment full of weird and wonderful flavour- and thereby fuel the DM and players imagination.

The two books (and no PDFs for those of us reduced to Maptools) are unwieldy at times, and sometimes more than a little confusing.

Personally I'd pay more money for better content, I know you're selling to everyone and so you have to sacrifice some of the flavour for a clearer labelling of what does what but you seem overly concerned with mechanical things at times, and less inclined to tell a story.

For me story is everything.

Finally, I want to tell you why I still buy and consume every adventure you publish, and hopefully will go on to play each and every one of them.

In my campaign at present the players are in the Pyramid of Shadows. They're in there because the city of Fallcrest- over which the Pyramid hangs in the sky, is shrouded by dense mists and fogs straight from the Shadowfell, is also overun by massive vines and plants ripped from the Feywild.

The citizens of the city have disappeared, initially grasped and grappled by the fogs and voracious plants- they have faded away, their life force somehow consumed, they have been taken- to who knows where.

My players emerged to find all this, from battles deep in the sewers of Fallcrest with a foul aboleth (Goodman Games Scenario Thrones of Fallcrest- beautiful) who was content only to buy some time for Karavakos to weave his foul magic.

My players were alone in the city, save of course for the giant beasts- mixtures of Fey and Shadow that too have come to their city. Alone save for Nimozaran the Green, who has managed to convince them that Fallcrest is doomed should the players not do something about it. Nimozaran in his wild youth fashioned the Pyramid, an extra-dimensional prison, with the help of the Tannheim Dwarves (see later).

And so they've headed into the Pyramid, Vyrellis (part crystal ball, part snow globe) turns out to be Eruan the Eladrin Wizard's (PC) mum (he knew this was on the cards- none of the other players did). Vyrellis constantly berates him for his sloppy appearance, and uncouth ways- compared to that nice Mr. Lucan. Lucan is our absolute scoundrel Rogue (PC). Eruan knows what his mum is like and is nervously carrying his mothers head around like it is a ticking bomb (Vyrellis defended the Feywild from Karavakos' demon army but in the process took advantage and slew many Eladrin families to advance her claim to the Throne of Fellscarp (the mirror of Fallcrest in the Feywild)).

The players are also equipped with a list of known inhabitants of the Pyramid (bad guys imprisoned within the Pyramid at the behest of the Thrones of Fallcrest & Fellscarp), they've been doing their homework- why because Karavakos has been sending out monsters from the Pyramid to battle our heroes for quite some time- about 10-15 sessions in fact. The entire plot, and their Paragon levels (the PCs entered the Pyramid on level 10- levelling up is fantastically smooth in 4E- thanks again) has been pointing to this since they started on the road. They've been finding Karavakos shaped clues- visions brought forth by the Rod of Ruin, scribbled notes- mostly gibberish, whispered last words of dying villains, promises of vengeance from spittle-flecked lips since the game started.

They've hated Karavakos for ages- every bad thing.... Karavakos.

But that's not all, Farkill our Dwarven Priest has recently started to encounter the ghostly remains of those he betrayed, way back in his past, who as a consequence of his betrayal were slaughtered by aberrations flung from the Far Realm. The Pyramid is a nexus, a cross-over point, everywhere and nowhere- strange things happen here- the dead visit, the future comes calling, the past repeats its mistakes.

Rock our Dwarven Fighter, and the other PCs, watched a flickery vision of a hooded dwarf crouch on the floor, insert something into thin air, look very nervous and repeat the phrase “Help me Arr-Zero-Cee-Kay. You're my only hope.” Rock in adventures past discovered that his mum and dad are not his mum and dad at all, and that he was delivered to the childless Dwarven couple by a Tannheim Dwarf  (an Inventor clan) called Creator Klum. He later learned that Creator Klum invented things called the Dwarforged- mechanical dwarves. He later learned that further prototype Dwarforged were in fact incredibly real... and if that wasn't enough he learned that Creator Klum's last project was called R0. Next to the R0, Creator Klum's initials R0-CK. That made him real worried.

Not as much though as when he found R1-CK sometime later.

All my players, and every major inhabitant of the Pyramid have their stories.

Gharash Vren (leader of the bandits in the Pyramid) and Farkill have a lot in common, Gharash Vren's backstory is equally terrible- a similar act of betrayal.

The Parsley Prophet... I could go on but my players may read this and they're only on the first level of the Pyramid, and there's wedges of stuff to come- I've had to do all the spadework however, which I don't mind of course, it's just... well, a little more- plot, story, characters that come alive and have purpose, detail (jumping off points), a fantasy reality in which cool fights are cooler because the players have had to use much more than their swords & spells to get there.

Sorry there's a lot of this.

Thanks for an amazing game, the time and the patience to read this, and most of all asking me (us) what we thought.

LOVE


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 5, 2010)

Don't focus on what the game or setting can do. Instead, figure out what you want to have happen, then translate that into game terms and start fleshing out the context. In planning a scenario, you are looking to create a certain kind of experience, while at the same time recognizing you cannot control the outcome. To make an encounter count, at an emotional level, you have to have big stakes. Since you can't count on players caring about NPCs, you want to get them some skin in the game.

If you think back on your favorite actions shows, the best episodes were the ones that revealed a bit about the protagonists or put them in personally difficult situations. Since you don't have the luxury of psychoanalizing the PCs when you publish for a general audience, you have to find general ways to find purchase with the PCs. Don't be afraid to push buttons, and don't be afraid to use more than one approach.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 5, 2010)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> If you think back on your favorite actions shows, the best episodes were the ones that revealed a bit about the protagonists or put them in personally difficult situations. Since you don't have the luxury of psychoanalizing the PCs when you publish for a general audience, you have to find general ways to find purchase with the PCs. Don't be afraid to push buttons, and don't be afraid to use more than one approach.




One of the best things I ever did for my games is develop the "Seven Stats" for each character. In FFZ, this specifically plays into how the villain acts, but in every game, it makes designing adventures that motivate the PC's much, much easier.


----------



## Votan (Mar 6, 2010)

My only adventure that I own in 4E was the Demon Queen's enclave.  I liked the adventure quite a bit.  It seemed a bit linear but that is a fixable problem.  My main issue was that I would have liked more random world details (that was often the thing that I liked in older edition modules).  A rich sense of background is hard to come up with on the fly but it part of my favorite modules (ICE, for example, or modules like Queen of Spiders).  

This detail can either be world building or notes on where the rusty tins cups are  --both can be used to add a sense of realsim and are time consuming to introduce yourself.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (Mar 6, 2010)

> I have to admit that Otyugh's are one of my favourite monsters, personally I think they are misunderstood and mainly just want to make friends with other poo producing species.




I think this is sig worthy.  Made me laugh.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 6, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> One of the best things I ever did for my games is develop the "Seven Stats" for each character. In FFZ, this specifically plays into how the villain acts, but in every game, it makes designing adventures that motivate the PC's much, much easier.



Mike Mearls has written some "roleplaying stat blocks" that contain similar information. I definitely thing this is something WotC should use more often. 

Also, Mike recently had an interesting blog post about how he designed 4E adventures and OD&D adventures differently (and how this felt better to him). This would be know-how WotC does have, it needs to start applying it ASAP.


----------



## Stormonu (Mar 6, 2010)

Someone else mentioned creature stats that are repeated throughout an adventure, as well as some stat blocks can take up quite a bit of space.  I have an idea that may help in this regard, as well as give more space to devote to "fleshing out" information if the delve format is retained.

Include monster cards with the adventure, possibly in punch-out cardstock sheets in the back of the book or as a seperate booklet.  They don't have to be index sized, and could be up to one-column wide page length front-and-back (in some cases with multiple creature stat blocks for the same encounter).  The "cards" could have the adventure name & page/encounter number in the corner.  DMs could use them as "book markers" or paper clip them to the pages for the encounter.  Perhaps they could include work areas for tracking damage or ongoing effects.

Edit:  Oh yeah - if this is done, it'd probably be a good idea to have the cards also downloadable for those who lose the cards...


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 6, 2010)

Paul_Klein said:


> D&D modules are way too long. Someone above me just said they cut 50% of the combat encounters out of _Pyramid of Shadows_, and it still took them 9 sessions to finish. That is straight-up boring, no matter how exciting the set pieces inside are.
> 
> If I pick up a module and see that not only will it take a dozen or so game sessions to finish, but it is also contained almost entirely in the same location - or worse, in the same dungeon - no way in heck am I going to buy and run that adventure.



I'm going to outright disagree on this one.  If I look at a module and - provided it's otherwise any good - think "this is gonna take them some time to play through" then when I buy it I feel I'm getting my money's worth.  If it looks like it'll take them only a session or two to wade through the module, I'm not as interested...if for no other reason than I'll all too soon be right back in the "I need an adventure to run" camp.

Lanefan


----------



## S'mon (Mar 6, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> I'm going to outright disagree on this one.  If I look at a module and - provided it's otherwise any good - think "this is gonna take them some time to play through" then when I buy it I feel I'm getting my money's worth.  If it looks like it'll take them only a session or two to wade through the module, I'm not as interested...if for no other reason than I'll all too soon be right back in the "I need an adventure to run" camp.
> 
> Lanefan




I think you're in the minority when it comes to 4e adventures, though.  Complaints about grind/slog seem much more common.

In any case, they could still have 3-level adventures without the sloggy feeling, if they were globe-trotting epics where you saw and did a whole bunch of different things, like many (eg) Call of Cthulu adventures.  

The 4e rules often seem designed around creating an action-adventure movie feel, rather than the 45-minute TV serial style most RPGs default to.  How many notable fights are there in a typical good (ie, non-Seagal) action movie?  8-10 would be at the high end.  So, take something like Star Wars or Return of the Jedi, or Raiders of the Lost Ark, as your model for what the PCs should be doing over *1 level of play*.  That's around 3 4-5 hour play sessions: the movie's beginning, middle and end.

Ironically some old adventures did do this - look at BECMI modules _Night's Dark Terror_ or _Where Chaos Reigns_.  Both look like perfect models for 4e.  I haven't seen anything like this in 4e.

Then a 3-level adventure, ca 24-30 encounters, should resemble _not_ a movie, but a full _trilogy_.

Yes, that's more work for the designers.  But it's not like you're limited by an SFX or actors' pay budget, only by the richness of your ideas.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 6, 2010)

S'mon said:


> look at BECMI modules _Night's Dark Terror_ or _Where Chaos Reigns_.  Both look like perfect models for 4e.



My group's 4e campaign started at level 1 with Night's Dark Terror and is now at level 6 and still going (having fleshed it out a bit here and there). It's worked well.


----------



## bert1000 (Mar 6, 2010)

*1. Pacing.* This is the big one. As someone else said, there needs to be some kind of story between every 1-2 combat encounters (and even skill challenges). See my next post for my thoughts on Eyes of the Lich Queen, which I thought did this pretty well.

*2. Exploration “encounters”.* This is the micro version of pacing. Areas need more interesting non-encounter details. See this thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/244799-old-school-modules-space.html

In summary, I agree that a completely empty dungeon room is boring, but a non-combat / non-skill challenge area does not need to be. Cult of the Reptile God is an awesome old school module and the final cavern complex has a bunch of “non encounter” rooms that are really cool: 1) a store room with provisions that lets PCs know there are humans around and their approximate number (information conveyed!), 2) an otherwise empty muddy floor cavern that looks similar to another cavern with monsters in the mud (tension!), 3) a cavern with non threatening skeletons acting as a bilge pump to keep the area from flooding! (awesome fantasy detail, sense of wonder!!!).

*3. Variety.* Many, smaller interesting locations are much more entertaining, allow a wider variety of plausible creatures to interact with, and create the sense of moving forward. Alternatively, a reason not to clear every room of a large location also works (luke didn’t clear every room of the death star but instead had several meaningful encounters toward his goal). Lich Queen did variety well.

*4. Choices and consequences.* Give the players meaningful choices and consequences and incorporate the results into the story. This is my beef with a lot of as written skill challenges right now. Failing a skill challenge results in some kind of trivial consequence (e.g., fight an extra level +1 battle). I think skill challenge results should always include a real story element. The skill challenge example in Galaxy of Intrigue had failure result in the loss of fellow prisoners at each failure. This is great, and even better if they had several interactions with some of these NPCs before hand. Not only will the PCs feel that they failed (even though they still escape and move the story along), but one of the lost NPCs might come back and hunt them down because they “abandoned them in the mines to save your own skin”. Incorporate more elements like this. More if the PCs choose to do this, then… Lich Queen did not really do this well.

*5. Antagonist motivations revealed to PCs*. First, the villains need better fleshed out motivations and background. But equally as important, some of this motivation and evil plotting needs to be conveyed to the characters in-game (and please don’t overuse the note, journal entry please). Otherwise all that background and motivation is just fun DM reading. The players are motivated to participate because they want to play an rpg, but great adventures are when the characters are also logically motivated to participate. So the larger point is *create reasons for why the characters might care*. Lich Queen was too heavy handed with this (basically characters get magically cursed and have to lift the curse).


----------



## bert1000 (Mar 6, 2010)

*Eyes of the Lich Queen (lots of SPOILERS)*

As I said in the post above, I thought this module did a great job of pacing and variety. Its flaws are the heavy handed character motivation (basically characters get magically cursed and have to lift the curse), lack of real choices (it’s straight up linear), and to some extent the lack of friendly NPC interaction.

In current WOTC style this would probably be 2-3 modules worth of plot with 60-90 combat encounters. In the end, this module covers a lot of ground but *I think you could do this module in 4E with 15-20 combat encounters that were all integral to the plot.* I’ve marked a quick strawman below: 

*So the characters get a job from a mysterious patron (clichéd and would be better if they knew this person from earlier adventures, but DMs can adjust this).

*Next, we get a jungle trek (always good, skill challenge), combat at a ancient temple with 2 young dragons pestering us (cool) *[2 combat encounters]*

* And then a reveal of a sub area from a different age and some combat to get the mcguffin. Good transition – advances the story and allows for a completely different set of opponents. *[2 combat encounters]* 

*PCs get ambushed and have combat by emerald claw who think the characters have an item. Great, introduces one of the main villain groups and gives the PCs additional info. [*1 combat encounter]*

*Next, PCs getting strange dragonmarks – good story advances. PCs get some down time, then find out the dragon marks are similar to an ancient explorers and the marks eventually killed him. Their patron wants a mcguffin the explorer may have found (the same thing the emerald claw was looking for) but the threat of death also provides motivation for the PCs to find the tomb of this explorer.

* Next phase involves 3 set pieces with information gathering in between. A great scene where the PCs need to recover a book from a mansion’s burning library that is being ransacked by the emerald claw. Great motivation to be there, and reason to have a combat. Encounter area is small and interesting. *[2 combat encounters]*

* [1 skill challenge] This leads to some information gathering and a new town port verge. The PCs efforts lead to a prison break in of the most notorious prison in eberron!! Another great location and set piece. This is set up as a “bust in and out” affair. So even though the prison itself is huge, the PCs can have 2-3 meaningful combat encounters and leave. It’s not a slog. *[2-3 combat encounters]*

*This leads to more info gathering and a great (likely non combat) encounter. The PCS must now convince a pirate king to let them see his rare map, or somehow steal it. Great non-combat stuff. [skill challenge]

*Now that the PCs have enough info to locate the tomb, they get to go to a haunted island (another different type of location). There is a cool “island guardian” combat encounter with an undead orca. The PCs then fight a somewhat random encounter with an deranged fire elemental that was used to power a crashed airship but it’s evocative of the setting so I think its fine. The tomb itself it somewhat generic but small enough that again its not a slog. The quori is a nice touch as a way to spice up the mosters encountered. The tomb ends with a bunch of information for the PCs given by the ghost of the explorer – good stuff, the PCs need to be informed of what is really going on at some point before the very end.* [4-5 combat encounters total for the island and tomb]*

*On their way back they get pirate ship to pirate ship boarded by the reanimated corpse of some they fought at the mansion. Great, reoccurring villain and cool location. *[1 combat encounter]*

* The last part involves going to the land of dragons, getting involved in a barbarian tribe civil war, and fighting a blue dragon on top of a ancient dragon astrological observatory. Again mixing up the location allowing for different types of combat and non-combat. [*2 combat encounters with barbarians*, 1 skill challenge to get allegiance with tribe, 1 skill challenge to sneak up on tower, *2-3 combat encounters in tower*]


----------



## darjr (Mar 6, 2010)

RPGA. It's a great resource, you have access to what adventures get played and how often. Not to mention a captive audience to ask about what has worked and what doesn't.

I realize that the kind of adventure that are rpga adventures are not everones cup of tea, but there are some fantastic adventures there and some great ideas.

The Mini campaign keeps getting requested, forex, and it's combats are mostly very easy, cept the last couple which are doozies.

The Radiant Vessel of Thesk gets lots of praize around here, and it has, what, only two combats? One of which is a hybrid of lots of roleplaying, skill challenge and combat.


----------



## darjr (Mar 6, 2010)

Oh and not to mention RPGA adventures may be a great place to experiment. Labled appropriately you'd probably get a ton of volunteers to try out new and wacky things at RPGA tables.


----------



## crash_beedo (Mar 7, 2010)

Rodney, you're still reading this thread?  Well, hopefully you've made it this far!

We've been playing 4E since the beginning, we've gone from H1-through-P2 so far so I have a fair amount of experience running your H/P/E series of modules, and will reference them the most.

*Shorter Delves*
The adventures that we've liked the most (to run and play) have had shorter combat sequences - 3, maybe 4 fights, then a natural break.  H2 - Thunderspire Labyrinth, and P2 - Demon Queen's Enclave, do this very well by presenting a series of small locations to explore.  H3 and P1 really slowed down at time.

3-level adventures don't need 25-30 combat encounters... put in more quests and story opportunities.  In 4E, every combat encounter needs to add something interesting to the story - too often in H3 and P1, there seemed to be filler.

*Re-Usable Locations*
The Thunderspire Labyrinth, Seven-Pillared Hall, Village of Winterhaven, Town of Moonstair, City of Phaervorul - I've liked these elements in the modules because the locations provide re-use when the main story is over.  The Seven-Pillared Hall has acted as lair, hideout, and general-use market since early Heroic.  Love it!

Revenge of the Giants has that 'City of Argent' - definitely looking forward to using it in the next campaign.

*Optimization Options*
Many times, the published encounters just aren't that challenging to an optimized group.  Write tougher encounters, with more lethality for the XP budget, or provide some ideas to the DM on how to bump the difficulty (um, within the budget... anyone can scale the monsters, duh).  Optimized groups can smoke the mods as written.  (*Sly Flourish* has great optimization articles on creating monster synergy).

*Better Dungeon-Tile Usage*
Another vote here for making more use of the tiles in the published adventures.

*Experimentation!*
Try some alternate presentations.  The free-form approach of P2, with all the faction roleplaying and opportunity for self-directed exploration, is pure joy.  I'd like to see you guys try a small wilderness sandbox setting like Keep on the Borderlands.  I'm looking forward to some of the 2010 adventures that sound like keyed settings (Vor Rukoth, and the Slaying Stones one) instead of linear sequences of encounters.

Exploration is fun... let us hop off the tracks!

*Last-Minute Bad-Guys*
This one doesn't bother me as much, because we use vignettes, cut scenes, foreshadowing, etc to introduce the villain early (regardless of how the module was written), and create a sense of build-up as the module progress - but it's a fair criticism; villains are more meaningful where there's a relationship established with the villain.

*More Classic Revisions*
Love to see all the 4E renditions of classic locales and adventures, keep them coming (as long as you can keep the quality high).  Let's see the Temple of Elemental Evil boxed set!


----------



## occam (Mar 7, 2010)

Rechan said:


> One of the reasons folks cite Paizo as so great at making adventures is because Paizo puts things in the adventures to make them an enjoyable read. Now, I know that you are writing adventures to be run as adventures, but to have enjoyable ideas pouring out of the pages (rather than encounters set up on the framework fo plot) is going to make the adventure better.
> 
> One thing that makes it better are NPCs, and things the players can enjoy.




These are two of the things I was going to mention.

Adventures are meant to be read, as well as played. While you can definitely go overboard on presenting background that will never see the light of play, some amount of story for the DM doesn't hurt. Get the DM involved in a good story when reading the adventure, and that enthusiasm will transfer to the players, in addition to making it more likely that the adventure will be selected for play. Nearly all of the 4e adventures I've read (which is all of those in _Dungeon_, plus a few of the standalone and D&D Game Day ones) come off as very dry. They tend to be highly focused, straight to the point when presenting information intended to see play. They're utilitarian, which has its advantages, but generally not engaging reading.

Plus, you never know what piece of seemingly unimportant background information will make it into the game; players are unpredictable in the questions they ask, and DMs often pick up on the smallest of hooks to expand, and use as major tie-ins to existing campaigns.

Examples of good reading, although not for reasons of richer background, are Dave Noonan's _Dungeon_ adventures (which is why I was particularly sorry to see him leave WotC). In "Betrayal at Monadhan" and "Last Breath of the Dragon Queen", he excels at providing useful advice to the DM in a conversational tone. Even the monster tactics sections are fun to read, instead of something to skip over.

On another point (mentioned by several others), NPCs need to be more interesting. The two 4e DMGs, which are the best DM advice books ever published for D&D, have tips on creating memorable NPCs, but the NPCs in WotC's published 4e adventures tend to be treated as means to ends, if they're characterized or even mentioned at all. Paraphrasing DMG advice, a little background motivation or a few appearance/personality quirks go a long way.

I'm torn on the delve format. I get the advantages, but it does make reading an adventure (see above) difficult. There's also the problem many others have brought up, the seemingly endless string of level-appropriate encounters. I'd suggest using the delve format only for 2-3 important set-piece encounters in an adventure, where you make full use of 4e's great encounter-building tools: terrain, traps, sophisticated group tactics, etc. Make those set pieces hard, just within the PCs' abilities to handle.

For most other encounters, I think I'd like to see a return to an old-school-style presentation. As you read through the encounter areas in a dungeon, for instance, each room has a paragraph of description. A few (2 or 3) refer to the delve-format pages for the big set pieces. But most of the rooms with monsters just list the monsters and reference their sources, like encounter groups in the Monster Manuals, e.g.:

	2 orc raiders (Monster Manual)
	2 orc berserkers (Monster Manual)
	1 dire boar (Monster Manual)
	1 false-floor pit (Dungeon Master's Guide)

Let the DM place them on the map and figure out tactics. These encounters should be _easy_, several levels below the PCs, so that they can be finished in a round or two. Not every combat needs to be life-or-death; in the old days, most weren't. If a combat takes 10 minutes, that's still fun, and doesn't feel like a waste of time. These should be the _majority_ of encounters; save the complex and potentially deadly encounters for the ones really significant to the story, which will make them much more memorable. This way the players can have fun beating up on monsters without wasting resources (if that's what they like; the DM can easily cut encounters if the players aren't into fast but essentially meaningless combats), get the XP they need more quickly when that's an issue, and save the full delve treatment for the encounters that really matter.

On another topic, I'd like to see more range in adventure settings. A long time ago, _Dungeon_ used to publish scenarios for Oriental Adventures, Al-Qadim, etc. For a DM running a non-standard campaign setting, he'd be grasping to use _any_ of the 4e _Dungeon_ adventures; even Eberron or FR adventures are nearly nonexistent. While the Points of Light setting was supposed to be completely generic and adaptable, in practice it feels very concrete, pigeon-holing nearly every published adventure into a setting with a specific set of deities, races, etc. While letting adventure writers branch out would mean publishing some adventures that most readers won't use if they're far afield of the standard D&D-type setting, a broader selection would reach more DMs overall.


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 7, 2010)

I've been playing and DMing 4e for almost two years now. I've played through Keep on the Shadowfell and Thunderspire Labyrinth and DMed Scepter Tower of Spellgard, Pyramid of Shadows, and numerous Dungeon adventures.

Here are my critiques and recommendations:

Adventures should be fun to read - When I read 4e adventures, I feel like I'm reading a collection of tactical encounters for a miniatures game. Thats boring. All 4e adventure writers should go read 1st and 2nd edition adventures. Particularly those written by Gygax, Monte Cook and others. These adventures told a story and reading these adventures was almost as fun as DMing them. 4e adventures should read more like these.

The world should feel old and mysterious - Add lots of backstory and interesting little tidbits. Historical references and so on. Gygax was a master at throwing in little bits in his dungeons that had nothing to do with the current adventure but allowed the DM to hint to his players that the world was a far older, more mysterious and dangerous place than they knew. I believe this contributed strongly to the elusive "sense of wonder" that 1e is so famous for. For example, a secret door that might lead an older more ancient section of dungeon that the current inhabitants don't know about. Or the players might come across a wall carving that tells the story of an ancient battle that the original inhabitants of the dungeon wanted to memorialize. That story may have nothing to do with the current reason the PCs are there but it makes the world seem alive, that it doesn't just exist for the PCs to stand on.

Exploration should be encouraged - Don't just fill rooms with endless combat encounters. But don't just throw in a ton of empty rooms either. Have areas of interest that are just neat to explore.

Consider pacing - After four encounters or so, the players are about ready to need an extended rest. The adventure design should provide a natural break at this point. Players need a mental break from all that combat as well. Provide a place to take an extended rest along with a social encounter, or just some fascinating area to explore without an imminent fight.

Less combat - Pyramid of shadows does a good job and providing interesting combats but the sheer number of them is just mind numbing. Sure there is a token effort made in some of the encounters to provide some RPing, but ultimately every NPC betrays you. More friendly NPCs, less combat and more quest XP. If it takes 10 encounters to level up, only 6 or 7 of those should be combat. Quest and story XP should make up the difference. Scepter Tower is also bad in this respect. You're just grinding through different levels of the tower. It gets old. The best encounters in that dungeon was the illithid haunt that replayed its death by trap and the magic curtain that made it look like your gear was teleported away. Those encounters were fun and really had that old school feel to them. Also it was annoying the boss fight came in the middle of the tower. The PCs still had to grind through several levels of tower but there was no sense they were building to a climax any more. It seemed like grinding for the sake of XP to get that level.

About the Delve Format - I like the Delve format in the sense that all the monster stats are right there along with the tactical layout of the room. But I dislike how I don't get to read more detailed backstory and plot about these particular monsters and why they are in this room doing what they are doing. Also I strongly dislike how part of the room description is written in one section but the rest in another. Scepter Tower of Spellgard was really bad. I had to flip between different pages to get the full description of one room. I shouldn't have to do that. Its ok to break the two page Delve format and not try to squeeze everything into those two pages. I don't mind if it means I don't have to hunt down the rest of the room description because it wouldn't fit on the two page delve format spread.


----------



## Festivus (Mar 7, 2010)

Things I really like in 4E adventure modules:

1. Two facing pages for every combat encounter.  Working with Red Hand of Doom for a second run through reminded me of how much I hate page flipping.

2. Poster maps - sometimes I buy products JUST for the maps.  I would like to see more use of this, or a closer tie to Dungeon Tiles products, perhaps once the master set comes out.

3. More skill challenges - I really appreciate that in every Living Forgotten Realms game, I know there will be a skill challenge or two.  It's my favorite part of the game now.  Also, more skill challenges as part of combats would be neat to see.  The fight with Kalarel at the end is a good example of this.

4. Terrain in combat encounters - straight up fights are boring and not very challenging.  A good example of a fight I didn't like was the dragon in trollhaunt... he died way to easily, and had nowhere to run or fight from.  A dragon strafing a bridge (a la Red Hand of Doom) is a good use.  Having the terrain add to the challenge of a fight is fun for players and DMs alike.

5.  I was reading Hammerfast last night (store got copies early... thank you WoTC!) and would really like to see other products that dovetail to the setting.  There are great plot-lets and quests in there and a lot of detail for a setting, but as a busy father of two I don't have time to write adventures.  I know it's in the Nentir Vale and ties with the original 9 adventures, but I'd like to see products that are set around this place.  The detail in the setting is really excellent, a good example of what you can do when you set aside 32 pages to talk about it.  I also like the 20' scale city map.

6. Keyed and unkeyed maps.  We use a projection system to display maps on the table, it would be nice if we could keep room numbers, secret doors, traps, etc, off the unkeyed maps for this.  I think folks have been asking for this for years, I know I have wanted it for years.

7. New Monsters - I love adventures that include new monsters and treasure... it's almost a tradition with published adventures from TSR/WoTC, please continue it.  It's the second reason I buy adventures.


----------



## Emryys (Mar 7, 2010)

One reason I buy the adventures is for the poster maps! 

I've noticed the new products Hammerfast and Vor Rukoth have the maps, yet HS2 Orcs of Stonefang Pass and HS1 The Slaying Stone do not list one, but they have similar page counts and price.

I like the smaller page count and price as it hopefully means it's a more compact and vesatile adventure/locale, but please include a map!

As it stands I'll only be buys 2 of the 4...


----------



## tomBitonti (Mar 7, 2010)

crash_beedo said:


> Rodney, you're still reading this thread?  Well, hopefully you've made it this far!




Excellent!  I think this captures a lot of what is missing from the 4E adventures.

As exemplars, I would look at (in no particular order, and not hardly inclusive; these are what I can think of quickly):

The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh, as a bang up great module

Drums on Fire Mountain, and When a Star Falls, for their great maps, and excellent structure.

Death on the Reik, or the Doomstones series (WFRP), for atmosphere and characterizations.

Red Hand of Doom, for the huge amount of content, storyline, and high production values

Return to the Tomb of Horrors, for the side panels depicting a part traversing the dungeon, and the dooms that befall many of them.

Of the 4E modules (I have them all), I enjoyed reading through Revenge of the Giants the most.  A large improvement over other 4E adventures, the book suffers from a few editing errors, and from what seems to be a rush / short shrift in the detailing of the section on the fire giants.  Also, the bit about the lich seemed, well, unheroic for the players.

(This seems to be a recurring problem: Editing mistakes, or folks not seeing how encounters or a story fit together as a whole, and whether they make sense.)

I do have to say that I think the 4E design has you boxed into a corner, as a key design feature is to abstract out a lot of the details that help create immersive, rich, stories.  But enough about that!

Thx!

Patience, and Peace,

TomB


----------



## Rechan (Mar 7, 2010)

Echoing two points above: Poster Maps and New Monsters! These are big incentives for me to pick up an adventure (even if I game online, and therefore don't NEED the poster maps). 

Two points I will add: 

The DMGs are toolkits to show you how to build exciting encounters, including advice on how to incorporate them. All sorts of things from fantastic terrain to mundane terrain to interactive set pieces to, well, anything. But most combats in the modules (aside from Pyramid of Shadows) do not utilize these tools.

The modules should, among other things, be a _demonstration_, an example to DMs: "This is how you build encounters". 

Also, on the topic of "exploration" and such: I'd like to see little things that are curious and fun to fiddle with, but do not impact things significantly. A talking statue. The projected illusion of a trap that is no longer there. Things that will make PCs stop and interact with it. This sort of thing is usually what sticks in the mind after the adventure: the novelty of something. It also lets the PCs _do something about it_; sort of like how every party has a story about what they did with Meepo, now every party who runs throught eh module will have a story of "What we did to the Statue".


----------



## Klaus (Mar 8, 2010)

I haven't read the entire thread, but it's 10 pages! So here goes:

1 - Theme: Look at Red Hand of Doom. It had a tight theme (PCs vs. army of hobgoblins + dragons). Adventures benefit from a theme.

2 - Foreshadow: One of my favorite 3e adventures was Forge of Fury. But the big bad, the dragon Nightscale, seemed like it was dropped into it out of the blue. And this happens quite often in WotC adventures, where a creature such as a dragon is merely hanging about the dungeon, sometimes without as much as a name.

3 - No repetitive encounters: Keep on the Shadowfell had a lot of these, with the kobolds, kobolds, kobolds, kobolds, then goblins, goblins, hobgoblins, hobgoblins... you get the idea. 

4 - More out-of-combat challenges: skill challenges, wilderness treks, investigation, etc. This helps with the next suggestion.

5 - Less combat: A single encounter in D&D can take an hour or more to resolve. Let's have less of those.

6 - Multiple approaches: Scepter Tower of Spellguard had this: you could enter the tower from the bottom or the top, and the encounters were adjusted accordingly. More of this, please.

7 - Set pieces: think of a cool scene in a movie, TV series or book, and try to include something with that impact. For instance, in the Fiery Dragon adventure The Silver Summoning the PCs had to sneak into a dwarven fortress being attacked by an orc horde, not unlike the Siege of Helm's Deep from Lord of the Rings. Imagine how cool to see the players visualizing that scene, with their PCs in the middle of it!


----------



## The_Gneech (Mar 8, 2010)

Klaus said:


> I haven't read the entire thread, but it's 10 pages! So here goes:
> 
> 1 - Theme: Look at Red Hand of Doom. It had a tight theme (PCs vs. army of hobgoblins + dragons). Adventures benefit from a theme.
> 
> ...




The tough part is doing both of these at once! 

It can be done, of course, by varying locales, encounter goals, that kind of thing. But it can be tricky to pull off.

-The Gneech


----------



## Henry (Mar 8, 2010)

1. I really dislike the delve format: The two-page spread with nothing but a blowup map, the list of monsters and blow-by-blow tactics just feels like a waste to me. It breaks the flow of a module for me, if that makes any sense. Perhaps it's the placement: In the modules I've looked at, they reference the combat afterwards, and so if I'm reading an adventure to get the flow of the module, I have to stop where I am, turn in the book to read the delve-piece, then turn back to where I was, see what's next, then turn BACK to the next delve-piece, etc. It's like if I were reading a D&D novel, and everytime the hero gets in a fight, I have to flip to an appendix to see what happened in the fight, and then flip back to the body of the story to continue - it's REALLY annoying to me.

2. I do feel the more recent 4E modules are far too scarce on evocative flavor for the locales and NPCs they include. Examples like the Forge of Fury from 3E, or the Speaker in Dreams are what captured me back in 3E, and back in 1E, I3 through I5, the Desert of Desolation series, are good examples of flavor that was evocative. Those are NPCs that really breathed to me.

3. I will say this on the repetitive creatures theme: I can completely understand the complaint, but at the same time it's more PLAUSIBLE, to me, to have a single threat instead of a menagerie of threats. the Menagerie is more fun, but makes no sense. Remember the old complaint, that the beholder was two rooms down from the platoon of orcs, who were both across the corridor from the 90-foot dragon in the 10' x 10' room? Too many monster types with shared goals tends to stretch plausibility for me. I think WotC's design of same creatures with different roles (kobold skirmishers, kobold archers, kobold solders, etc.) works pretty well to vary this up.


----------



## Crothian (Mar 8, 2010)

I like modules that don't assume what the players are going to do.  Give a situation, describe it, but don't assume combat or skill resolution, or anything.  I like it when I'm given the tools to run the encounter how the players want it run.  

I like city based adventures.  They are tough to do but Rodney I think you did a very good one for Games Mechanics Liberty setting so I know you are able.

I also like fantastic locations.  We have plenty that go into caverns, but we don't have enough that go into the clouds for instance.


----------



## Festivus (Mar 8, 2010)

Henry said:


> 1. I really dislike the delve format: The two-page spread with nothing but a blowup map, the list of monsters and blow-by-blow tactics just feels like a waste to me. It breaks the flow of a module for me, if that makes any sense. Perhaps it's the placement: In the modules I've looked at, they reference the combat afterwards, and so if I'm reading an adventure to get the flow of the module, I have to stop where I am, turn in the book to read the delve-piece, then turn back to where I was, see what's next, then turn BACK to the next delve-piece, etc. It's like if I were reading a D&D novel, and everytime the hero gets in a fight, I have to flip to an appendix to see what happened in the fight, and then flip back to the body of the story to continue - it's REALLY annoying to me.




What I do like about the "delve" format, is that everything I need for combat is there.  How about this for a idea... ditch the map that shows minis placement and put them all on one map at the back of the book or on a section of pages, and then insert something we find in LFR modules, a "Ending the Encounter" section.  Because I really don't look at the map after combat begins, but I sure do look at "Features of the area", "Tactics", and stat blocks.  That to me, would be an improvement.


----------



## Votan (Mar 8, 2010)

Henry said:


> I will say this on the repetitive creatures theme: I can completely understand the complaint, but at the same time it's more PLAUSIBLE, to me, to have a single threat instead of a menagerie of threats. the Menagerie is more fun, but makes no sense. Remember the old complaint, that the beholder was two rooms down from the platoon of orcs, who were both across the corridor from the 90-foot dragon in the 10' x 10' room? Too many monster types with shared goals tends to stretch plausibility for me. I think WotC's design of same creatures with different roles (kobold skirmishers, kobold archers, kobold solders, etc.) works pretty well to vary this up.




This is a very good point and a massive advantage of 4E (that should be taken advantage of).  If anything, going further down this pathway makes sense.  After all, in a historical game (say replaying Agincourt) all of one's opponents are likely to be human but that does not necessarily lead to boring combats!


----------



## Rechan (Mar 8, 2010)

To retort Henry, part of the issue of the Repetitiveness is not, necessarily, that "I want to fight kobolds now and orcs in the next room". 

It's "I'm fighting kobolds now, and then the _same mix of kobolds in the next room_."

4e lets each enemy have different kinds of powers. So fighting the _same_ enemy over and over, the same mix of said enemies, is a _travesty_.

Granted, it's good that the same monster pops up occasionally so PCs can learn and react according (Oh crap it's a Dragonscale - nuke his face first.) But fighting Dragonscales in every encounter will overstay its welcome. Again I point to the fact that in KotS, the first two encounters differ ONLY in that the second had kobold skirmishers.

And, one thing 4e wants to do is make different Monsters play nice together. It's not JUST goblins, it's goblins and whoever's in charge, goblins and whatever monster they're using as pets/mounts, goblins and their champions, etc. So that should be taken advantage of.


----------



## vagabundo (Mar 8, 2010)

I'm currently running H2 and having a blast: last nights game was awesome, a revolving bridge trap (Skill Challenge) across the Duergar fortress chasm and tonnes of Duergar from the MM2. 

But I have ripped out many of the encounters and replaced them with my own and spiced up the whole thing. I also had to redo the plot as it didn't make much sense to me as written.

Kudos to WotC for the great setting and many of the Random Encounters - something that you should put in every adventure - are excellent.

Change the delve format a little, it really needs some tweaking, but I do find it handy to have all the info open in front of me when running the game - page flipping sucks - but I think you should have a second booklet with all the background information and large scale maps, NPC bio's and the like.

Anyway I really came here to post a Blog link. I found it very helpful when I was revising H2 to the Campaign of Awesome it is turning out to be: 

Eleven Foot Pole

He goes through H1 and H2, up to the Duergar fortress, well worth a read (and I did put a Gauth Beholder into the Chamber of Eyes, my players loved it).


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Mar 8, 2010)

On the topic of too many of the same monsters, I must say I prefer if the location has all more or less the sane monsters it makes more sense than a menagarie but it is also an aspect of the too many fights. 
The encounters should be more multiroom, in that the monsters should be conducting a fighting retreat to allies if they are being bested with the allies mooving up to reinforce them. 
That way you would have less fights but they would be more dynamic.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 8, 2010)

ardoughter said:


> On the topic of too many of the same monsters, I must say I prefer if the location has all more or less the sane monsters it makes more sense than a menagarie but it is also an aspect of the too many fights.
> The encounters should be more multiroom, in that the monsters should be conducting a fighting retreat to allies if they are being bested with the allies mooving up to reinforce them.
> That way you would have less fights but they would be more dynamic.




Yes, I'd prefer it if the default was to stat a "Goblin Lair" as a single, multi-room, encounter.  Make that encounter Party Level +4 if it's likely to be the only battle of the day.  Use lots of minions - a single PL+4 battle with 30 goblins is more fun than 3 PL+0 battles with 5 goblins each, anyway.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 8, 2010)

The_Gneech said:


> The tough part is doing both of these at once!
> 
> It can be done, of course, by varying locales, encounter goals, that kind of thing. But it can be tricky to pull off.
> 
> -The Gneech



Look at Keep on the Shadowfell: you open by fighting kobold slingers and defenders. Then defenders and wyrmpriest. Then defenders, slingers and minions. Then slingers, minions and skirmishers. Then defenders, wyrmpriest and a goblin. Over the course of 5 encounters you battle the same 4 varieties of kobolds. That can get a bit redundant.

For instance, you can have an adventure set against orcs, using all the orcs in the MM, plus the 8 or so variants from the Dragon article Creature Incarntions: Orcs, and have little to no repetition (aside from minions... those are meant to go down fast, so bring more!)


----------



## Nebulous (Mar 8, 2010)

Paul_Klein said:


> D&D modules are way too long. Someone above me just said they cut 50% of the combat encounters out of _Pyramid of Shadows_, and it still took them 9 sessions to finish. That is straight-up boring, no matter how exciting the set pieces inside are.




It was me that said that and Pyramid was not boring at all. I reduced it to fights that MATTERED, many of the best battles, and i added Paldemar from Thunderspire Labyrinth running ahead of the PCs on his quest for the Hand and Eye of Vecna which were posessed by Karavakos. I also added non-combat encounters and NPCs to talk to, something Pyramid was woefully lacking. The Pyramid still features in my current homebrew campaign with an open portal straight to the Far Realm.  Pyramid had a lot of great ideas buried in endless combat and a weak plot and a weak villain.


----------



## Morfedel (Mar 8, 2010)

Honestly, I think the best adventures are those in which the players get invested in.

Let me use the Witchfire Trilogy as an example. It was terribly lead you by the nose. But the characters were vibrant, three dimensional, and memorable. The story itself was intriguing, and it wasn't something like the threat of invasion or the destruction of the world (at least, not at first). No, it was about a young girl wanting revenge for the murder of her mother.

Reminds me of a book by Lois McMaster Bujold called The Spirit Ring, in which a daugther was trying to rescue the soul of her dead father from slavery in a magical ring.

In other words, I think that having a compelling list of interesting characters, characters that are three dimensional, beautiful and flawed, with good and bad aspects to them, in a story that may not necessarily be of the typical dangers we see in plotlines, might be a wonderful way to go.

For example, what about an adventure in which there are two sides, and neither are clearly the hero or villain? A shades of grey adventure where the PCs get entangled in, make friends/allies from both sides, and a generally good, but tragic and tormented npc who is about to do something terrible due to his misery?

Or how about a game where the PCs are left with a terrible choice? Kill a child or see a kingdom destroyed kind of thing? I remember a movie about the coming of the antichrist, a young man who is said to become possessed by him; at the end of the movie, as the clock ticked down to the final hour, the man, who had been fighting the "inevitable," looks worried... then the digital clock in the car suddenly switches to 666, his lips start to twitch into a smile, and the heroine pulls the trigger and kills him. End of movie.

I dunno. I've always liked shades of grey, and while throwing in monsters and such is fine to a degree, I really like games where you could take an alternative point of view and say that the other side is in fact the villains.

Another is a more complex, convoluted plotline, in which there are several antagonists working towards different goals at cross purposes, leaving the PCs in the middle of a several way proverbial crossfire.

Anyway. Just some ideas.

James




Moridin said:


> Hello there everybody,
> 
> In case you don't know me, I'm Rodney Thompson, a D&D developer at Wizards of the Coast. Over the years I've seen WotC adventures take some knocks, to put it mildly. To put it more bluntly, I've seen comments to the effect that WotC adventures are, ahem, the worst. I'm not sure I agree, but there is a perception out there that some WotC-published adventures are sub-par.
> 
> ...


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 8, 2010)

RE: Monster Variety

I think it's important that the monsters _have an ecosystem_. 

So you don't wind up with "what the heck is this ooze doing hanging out with this orc?!", but you also don't wind up with "all of these kobolds are starting to look the same to me." 

I think easing up on combat in general will also help this -- if there's only 6 combat encounters for each level, it's easier to avoid repeats. And note that "combat encounters" effectively just mean minis-grid combats. You can, say, fight a sea monster while on a ship, or a colossus attacking the town, in a much different way than you can fight a group of orcs. Think of _Shadow of the Colossus_ or _God of War_ or even some of the immense critters in _Final Fantasy XIII_. There is a lot going on there that isn't just "I hit, and do damage, and inflict a condition."

I'd also say that I would like _fewer monsters per encounter_. Make use of elites and solos, not just as "boss monsters," but as regular features. Those 6 combats should be *dramatic*. 

If a combat ever feels like filler, it's probably best to jettison it. Battles for life and death shouldn't be boring. Make at least 3 combat encounters per level an actual struggle for the PC's to avoid TPK, and make at least 3 noncombat encounters per level something that the success of the current strategy ultimately relies on. Risk death and failure. Don't play nice. Even, _use fewer encounters, but make those encounters MORE EPIC_. You don't have that many pages. Pick three solos at Level +3 and let the PC's figure out how to take them down. 

And that way, when you do have these encounters with kobolds, you have fewer of them, making the fact that there's only 5 or so varieties less of a pain. 

Part of what I think would help is an actual system for noncombat encounters that makes use of character roles, archetypes, and powers, in the way that combat does. But noncombat roles and powers are things I've been advocating for a long time, so I might have a bit of an axe to grind on that point.  

But that way, whether you're killing kobolds, or negotiating with the king, everyone can contribute, everyone _risks something_, and everyone stands to gain with a success, in a unique way that is resonant to their archetype, rather than in some generically broad way.


----------



## brunswick (Mar 9, 2010)

Echo what many of the rest of ye have said - from what I have read in WOTCs 4th Ed adventures to date, there are far too many combats.  I've just started running the Keep on the Shadowfell for 2 separate groups and one group (who are more the "hack n' slash" type) I reckon will enjoy it but the 2nd group (who are almost the polar opposite of a hack n' slash group) I suspect will get bored fast unless I trim the combats somewhat.

The DMG gives definitions for various types of players - actors, storytellers, etc., and advises DMs to cater for all their players tastes.  Yet, from what I can see, you (WOTC) dont seem to follow this advice and gear your adventures for those that like the combat part of the game.

I (and my players) would love to see more Skill Challenges, puzzles, non-combat encounters to balance out the fighting.

Something else I dislike - The location and NPC descriptions provided in, for example, KOTS, are very sparse.  More attention should be given I think to NPC mannerisms, advice of playing them etc., and more attention should be given to the description of the locations/dungeon rooms within the adventure.  I know that, as a DM, I can flesh out the encounter descriptions (and I do) but one of the reasons I bought the module in the first place is based on the assumption that a lot of this work will be done for me.  I know you can only put so much into the pages of the module but my first impression on reading KOTS was that it half finished (lacking "detail" and containing some glaring errors).  I dont know if it was a conscious decision by the company but it just appeared (to me) that lip service was paid to the role-playing elements and background depth in the adventure, and I felt short changed by its presentation. 

I have tweaked the adventure and 'fleshed out' the various locations to my taste now but I would have preferred if this had been done (at least in part) for me by the author/WOTC. 

Bruns.


----------



## nedjer (Mar 10, 2010)

So we seem to have established that quite a few modules are kind of too


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoE6JVRPcTM"]YouTube - Iron Maiden - Bring Your Daughter To The Slaughter[/ame]


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 11, 2010)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Yes, I'd prefer it if the default was to stat a "Goblin Lair" as a single, multi-room, encounter. Make that encounter Party Level +4 if it's likely to be the only battle of the day. Use lots of minions - a single PL+4 battle with 30 goblins is more fun than 3 PL+0 battles with 5 goblins each, anyway.




I think I would be in love with this.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Mar 11, 2010)

1. Minions - we now have a mechanic to use lots of bad guys, but I don't see too many of them. Actually a bigger variety in monsters full stop (by that I don't mean weird and wonderful combos, just variances on same race/theme). For eg Trollhaunt warrens. How many fights vs same creature - I substituted many troll types from the compendium, inc sev minions and several of lower level. Some encs in that module (grell, etc) really didn't need to be there. I think this may have led to 2 other points.

2. Theme - I love when a module follows a theme of some sort. Rewards players for investing in it too. From architecture to the creatures enc. (Eg: Adding Skalmad's son going hunting with troll hounds (thanks Blackdirge) was one of the most fun encounters in trollhaunt for the PCs. Having orcs from a certain tribe stand out from those from another, etc.

3. Description - I am not a fan of only encounter areas having a 'boxed description'. This is vital for theme and the 'feel' of a place. I love attention to minor details in descriptions (like Red Hand of Doom). Goblin songs, carvings reflecting previous inhabitants, etc

4. Villain - as many have already said BBEG shouldn't just be awaiting random bunch of good guys to come and defeat him/her/it. Needs to be active. PCs loved that Skalmad was exactly that. They really hated him by the 3rd time they had to defeat him.

5. Balance - Well 'not balanced' for me. I am not fond of the math-like theory of encounter balance. Rather than finding the fact that every encounter is around the PC level a challenge we find it a bore. I certainly do reading the module. Throw in encounters that ARE easy (as suggested in DMG). Make encounters that the PCs aren't meant to find a 'balanced encounter' or let them know they are VERY unlikely to survive. Not every encounter has to be a balanced fight. That green dragon is in the forest whether PCs are 1st or 12th. Why can't it encounter them at 1st? It doesn't have to kill them...

6. Odd adventures - now it appears every adventure has to be suitable for every campaign...I am finding a lot of them lame. I would like some more exotic adventures, especially some variance in setting. Deserts, snow, jungle, moats, completely fantastical. hard to put a finger on, but not many adventures are surprising anymore.

5. Treasure - include the new treasure ideas from books beyond PHB. Eg a lot more alchemical items, poisons, new weapons, boons or even suggest just boosting an item a player already has.

Hope that helps off the top of my head. C


----------



## talwynor (Mar 12, 2010)

For me, the key to a better WOTC adventure is to focus on the reason I buy published adventures in the first place - to save prep time.  Every writer, I think, strives to create an engaging story. Success will vary, but what does the adventure have to make my life easier?  4e is tactial - are all the battle maps included?  If not, are there at least - as someone noted earlier - dm and player versions of the maps?  Are there handouts and visuals to use?  Tokens would be a godsend - During 3e, Fiery Dragon's modules stood out for me precisely because of their tokens and handouts.  If a module had all of these things, I would scoop it up in a heartbeat and pay a premium.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 12, 2010)

Hello?
Is there anybody in there?
Just nod if you can hear me.
Is there anyone home?


Is anyone from WotC still reading this thread?


----------



## gribble (Mar 12, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> In a standard dungeon-style adventure, terconnect the levels and sections more.  This allows for an adventure to play differently on repeated use, as the party has more choice in which ways to go and thus might not encounter obstacles and opposition in any predictable order.
> 
> ...
> 
> I can't think offhand of a published adventure that does this really well.



Both Tomb of Abysor (I'm sure I spelt that wrong) and Rappan Athuk from Necromancer Games do this really well.


----------



## The_Gneech (Mar 12, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Is anyone from WotC still reading this thread?




Well, we can't be absolutely sure that anyone from WotC ever was ... Rodney might have just posted and left for his birthday party. But I suspect he's more interested in reaping than sowing at this point and so is just letting the conversation run its course.

-The Gneech


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 12, 2010)

The_Gneech said:


> Well, we can't be absolutely sure that anyone from WotC ever was ... Rodney might have just posted and left for his birthday party. But I suspect he's more interested in reaping than sowing at this point and so is just letting the conversation run its course.
> 
> -The Gneech




Could be.

Could also be a "let's get people to talk about WotC adventures" thread.

Years of playing D&D have made me paranoid and suspicious of the motives of NPCs....er, of other people.  

(Also, any excuse for quoting Pink Floyd is acceptable in my books.)


RC


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 12, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Could be.
> 
> Could also be a "let's get people to talk about WotC adventures" thread.
> 
> ...




IMO, that's just as likely as you being on Paizo payroll and paid to try to smear WotC in every thread on this board.

*Enough, people. Jack, exactly what experience here has made you think this sort of personal attack is acceptable? I don't care whether you agree with someone or not, you won't take personal shots. PM me if this is the least bit unclear. ~ PCat*


----------



## Stoat (Mar 12, 2010)

S'mon said:


> Yes, I'd prefer it if the default was to stat a "Goblin Lair" as a single, multi-room, encounter.  Make that encounter Party Level +4 if it's likely to be the only battle of the day.  Use lots of minions - a single PL+4 battle with 30 goblins is more fun than 3 PL+0 battles with 5 goblins each, anyway.




WotC said two years ago that this would more or less be the standard.  Smaller groups of monsters would constitute a single, multi-room encounter rather than having each separate room stand alone.  Shadowfell doesn't go as far as you suggest, but it does break the dungeon up into clusters of three to five rooms.

Later adventures have backtracked.  AFAIR, H-3 contains only single-room encounters.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 12, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> IMO, that's just as likely as you being on Paizo payroll and paid to try to smear WotC in every thread on this board.




If that's the case, he's doing a poor job of it. He's way too cogent and reasonable. Seriously, RCK, you call this trolling? I've seen better trolls hanging from rear-view mirrors!

[SIZE=-2]<Just in case it wasn't clear, this is a joke. I am not actually accusing anyone of being a troll.>[/SIZE]


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 12, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> If that's the case, he's doing a poor job of it. He's way too cogent and reasonable. Seriously, RCK, you call this trolling? I've seen better trolls hanging from rear-view mirrors!
> 
> [SIZE=-2]<Just in case it wasn't clear, this is a joke. I am not actually accusing anyone of being a troll.>[/SIZE]




Exactly. Just like I think it's extremely unlikely that WotC started this thread under a false pretense, in order to get people to talk about their adventures.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 12, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> IMO, that's just as likely as you being on Paizo payroll and paid to try to smear WotC in every thread on this board.




Except the ones where I don't.....Or the ones where I compliment them.....

.......Which are, of course, just there to throw you off the scent.......



(If only I *was* getting paid by Paizo.....    Or, well, *anybody*, just to talk about D&D....Now you've gone and made me sad.)

Seriously, though, a nod from someone at WotC would be nice.  I sent a PM a few days ago and have got no response about the module conversions.....Can we post conversions of earlier edition modules to 4e?

On a related note, I am now working on converting some 4e adventures, and would be willing to go into detail about how the adventures seem (to me) if anyone from WotC is still "listening".  And, trust me, this is not all negative feedback....there are some things I _*really*_ like.  (I actually posted about one Dungeon adventure some time ago, the one with the dungeon under the face in the hill).

(Upcoming in my campaign is a shif to a more "open sandbox" world....I am literally going to shift the PCs' home city from one material plane to another.  It is telling that there is material in some WotC adventures that I don't want to use right now, because it is "too good" to be lost when the plane shift occurs.  Because I am doing the same with earlier edition adventures, I can easily compare and contrast.)


RC


----------



## mudbunny (Mar 12, 2010)

I will poke my contact at WotC again about the module conversion. I will also note that it *would* be nice to have Rodney drop back in at some point in time.


----------



## El Mahdi (Mar 12, 2010)

deleted


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 12, 2010)

There was a bit of tongue-in-cheek there, El Mahdi.  That's why I said years of playing D&D have made me paranoid and suspicious, etc.

Recently overheard at a game:

Player 1:  "This guy just hired us, and paid us.  What makes you think he's trying to kill us?"

Player 2:  "This is D&D."

(I paraphrase.)

RC


----------



## El Mahdi (Mar 12, 2010)

deleted


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 12, 2010)

Keep this thread focused, please. No more "conspiracy!" nonsense.


----------



## The_Gneech (Mar 12, 2010)

'twas all in good fun.  The conversation had kinda petered out anyway.

-TG


----------



## Kurtomatic (Mar 12, 2010)

Outside the delve format, I think this thread has some strong, awesome consensus about what a lot of us would like to see in future WotC adventures. Woot.

Now I think we'd kinda like to know what the devs think. Complicating this somewhat, is the fact that Rodney has multiple instances of this topic around the net, with varying results:

WotC Blog
RPGnet
BTW, inside the delve format, can I suggest that when you're holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail?

Just for funsies, let's imagine a shorter adventure product that offers no more than a single level of advancement, features generous use of the delve layout, tactical poster map, and all the quick-play bells and whistles. 

Then imagine a longer format adventure product providing more than one level of advancement that only uses two-page tactical delve layouts for the really key, critical encounters. It also includes lots of optional encounters due to enhanced exploration options and meaningful player choices; these encounters use an abbreviated (dare I say, more traditional) format that allows page-space for the kinds of richer adventure development that we're asking for in this thread. You could even stick some extra delve layouts and other quick-play/newbie aids for this product in DDI as web-enhancments.

Some encounter entries should only be a paragraph long. It's okay, we can handle it! 

P.S. How's your Savage North campaign doing?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 12, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> Keep this thread focused, please. No more "conspiracy!" nonsense.




Aye aye, Piratecat!



I'm off to visit my folks in Wisconsin for a week; when I get back I'll try to give an in-depth analysis of one WotC adventure with elements I like (and intend to steal) from Dungeon.

RC


----------



## The_Gneech (Mar 12, 2010)

Actually, Rodney just tweeted that he was off on vacation for a week, so don't expect to hear anything for a while anyway. 

-The Gneech


----------



## Ydars (Mar 12, 2010)

I hope after all that, that I am allowed to chime in.

I have read the whole thread and there are points that haven't come up.

The WoTC philosophy for adventure design is entirely wrong. The problem with these adventures is that they are all designed to a formula; they are entirely formulaic. The mechanics are also in the FOREGROUND in all WoTC adventures whereas they should be in the background. 

It is like the three act model, and all those other models of how to write a book or a TV programme. And yes, those things are successful.

But we have all seen them SO many times before that they are now boring and passe. 

I want to see something where I can't see the 'role' the NPC is meant to play; I want to see them written with some integrity and reality. Otherwise they are just sock puppets who are meant to be killed.

I want locations and encounters that are not there 'just to advance the story' but  are there instead to make the world seem to live and breath. 

Combat is a part of stories and fiction solely there to provide drama, but endless slogs with monsters and NPCs I don't care about have zero drama.

The monsters need to have names, to be foreshadowed and should not just be there to die. It all just makes no sense otherwise.

So if you want to invent adventures that have a touch of genius; throw away the WoTC 'guide to writing adventures'.


----------



## nedjer (Mar 12, 2010)

Ydars said:


> I hope after all that, that I am allowed to chime in.
> 
> I have read the whole thread and there are points that haven't come up.
> 
> ...




What he said. I don't want Iron Maiden I wanna . . .

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDf_LlF2UAc"]YouTube - Dave Gahan & Primal Scream - Loaded (live)[/ame]


----------



## nedjer (Mar 13, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> I will poke my contact at WotC again about the module conversion. I will also note that it *would* be nice to have Rodney drop back in at some point in time.




He deserves a holiday as much as anyone else 

And the thread's only started to stack up. Decent plots, rich characters, original backdrops, formula free, rewarding good play/ roleplaying, varied combat, opportunities for open-ended play so far - but there's more . . .


----------



## ArcaneSpringboard (Mar 13, 2010)

Henry said:


> 3. I will say this on the repetitive creatures theme: I can completely understand the complaint, but at the same time it's more PLAUSIBLE, to me, to have a single threat instead of a menagerie of threats. the Menagerie is more fun, but makes no sense. Remember the old complaint, that the beholder was two rooms down from the platoon of orcs, who were both across the corridor from the 90-foot dragon in the 10' x 10' room? Too many monster types with shared goals tends to stretch plausibility for me. I think WotC's design of same creatures with different roles (kobold skirmishers, kobold archers, kobold solders, etc.) works pretty well to vary this up.




I think you're right, as long as there is a good variety of monsters.  However, there is another issue:

Combat time.

It's one thing to have three rapid encounters with a variety of kobolds...but if each battle is taking 60-90 minutes, I don't want to spend the majority of two 3 hour sessions fighting kobolds.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 13, 2010)

> Combat time.
> 
> It's one thing to have three rapid encounters with a variety of kobolds...but if each battle is taking 60-90 minutes, I don't want to spend the majority of two 3 hour sessions fighting kobolds.




Like Merric's thread points out, long combats fudge with the pacing of each session. That's less key for an adventure that goes over multiple sessions (though I'd certainly appreciate it if they paid some attention to session pacing).


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 13, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Like Merric's thread points out, long combats fudge with the pacing of each session. That's less key for an adventure that goes over multiple sessions (though I'd certainly appreciate it if they paid some attention to session pacing).



I'd have to say that would be utterly impossible, as every group plays at a different pace and for a different amount of time each session.

An adventure that group A might blast through in 2/3 of a session might take group B 2 sessions and group C 6 sessions.  Personally, other than intentional one-offs and minor side-treks I can't remember the last time I ran an adventure all the way through in one session. (admittedly, 4e might be different in this respect; I wouldn't know)

I'd say just lay the adventure out and let groups play through it at their own speed instead of even trying to set a pace.

Lanefan


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 13, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Seriously, though, a nod from someone at WotC would be nice.  I sent a PM a few days ago and have got no response about the module conversions.....Can we post conversions of earlier edition modules to 4e?
> 
> RC




While I might not be WotC, maybe I can help. Last year, I started a conversion of Red Hand of Doom, here on this site, in the blog section. Several posters started claiming that I might be breaking the rules of the GSL, and I would bring down law-suits and other bad things(tm) on ENworld. This was around the time where a few sites were being closed by C&D-letters sent by WotC.

Curious if I had completely misunderstood the GSL, I sent Scott Rouse a PM, asking if such conversions were okay, and he said "don't worry, go ahead"  or something along those lines. Now, I never finished the conversion, I grew bored with it, but it should still be there, so that you can see what Scott thought was okay. 

Although my argument probably wouldn't hold in court, I have faith in Scott's call, and wouldn't worry if I ever chose to make another conversion.


----------



## ArcaneSpringboard (Mar 13, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Like Merric's thread points out, long combats fudge with the pacing of each session. That's less key for an adventure that goes over multiple sessions (though I'd certainly appreciate it if they paid some attention to session pacing).




Merric's thread actually gave me an epiphany over what has been bugging me the last six months playing 4e.  

We're going to try doing mini-less combat now.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 13, 2010)

ArcaneSpringboard said:
			
		

> Merric's thread actually gave me an epiphany over what has been bugging me the last six months playing 4e.
> 
> We're going to try doing mini-less combat now.




I've been revolving around that drain for a while, but it means something when the official ENWorld Optimist comes out and says "Guys, um..."  I'd like to think I'm fair, and Merric is downright charitable from what I've seen.

I don't feel comfortable going minis-less for 4e combat, just because that would be throwing out a *huge chunk* of the system. I figure if I'm doing that, I might as well use a whole different game's combat system, since push, pull, slide, slow, and shift are so integral to 4e's "damage + status" system. Controllers and leaders, especially, even many defenders, would all need brand new ways of thinking about their abilities. 

But that may be an extreme reaction. Either way, I think focusing WotC adventures on a few big, risky, dangerous, epic combats, and peppering in plenty of non-combat XP, would address a lot of the issues mentioned in this thread. It would vary challenges, it would include more RP, it would reduce same-ness of combats, it would mean that combats are each significant, it would create more dynamic NPC's...all of that flows almost directly from thinking about only a few big combats per adventure.

And if we're lucky, we might get some "noncombat powers" for the PC's to use.


----------



## ArcaneSpringboard (Mar 13, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I don't feel comfortable going minis-less for 4e combat, just because that would be throwing out a *huge chunk* of the system. I figure if I'm doing that, I might as well use a whole different game's combat system, since push, pull, slide, slow, and shift are so integral to 4e's "damage + status" system. Controllers and leaders, especially, even many defenders, would all need brand new ways of thinking about their abilities.




The problem is that glancing at the War of the Burning Sky, which I'm very tempted to run, would still take a long time to do, just because there still are lots of encounters.  The problem is that even if you have just 'important' encounters, the time spent on those will still dominate the time spent on other things.  Though at least there would BE other things in published adventures.

I'm not so sure that the push/slide/slow etc is as critical as you think it is, and can fairly easily be dovetailed into a more narrative combat.


----------



## Truename (Mar 13, 2010)

ArcaneSpringboard said:


> The problem is that glancing at the War of the Burning Sky, which I'm very tempted to run, would still take a long time to do, just because there still are lots of encounters. The problem is that even if you have just 'important' encounters, the time spent on those will still dominate the time spent on other things. Though at least there would BE other things in published adventures.




I'm just now wrapping up WotBS #1 with my group. I cut some of the dross (Scenes 2-6-1, 4-2, and 4-3, if you're curious), but it will end up taking eight 3-hour sessions, which will get us to level 4. During that time, we'll have had 7 fights. I cut two and they bypassed the remaining four through their choices and roleplaying. It depends on your players and how you present things, but WotBS is very friendly to non-combat solutions.

My players like combat, so I try to include one fight in every session, which leaves us plenty of time for roleplay and the like. I'm still getting a feel for the best way to pace things, but so far it's working very well for us, with some sessions being combat-heavy and some being RP-heavy.


----------



## BruntFCA (Mar 14, 2010)

I think part of the problem is the de-emphasis on puzzles and traps.

Tomb of Horrors was very popular, and it was *full* of traps and puzzles.

DMs don't know how to work the Passive Perception thing either. The best idea I've seen is that you get a -2 for every 5 foot or whatever you're away from the trap. So there's no lame auto-finding...

Or you can make it that as they get closer in a charge they realize there's a tripwire just ahead! Continue with charge or bail out?

If you read the stuff on Rituals, some of them are well thought out, but they are just ignored in the Modules. I make it that you *need* all sorts of rituals to finish a campaign...just go ahead and read some, you will get amazing ideas for puzzles and modules.

I even created a character called the "Ritualist"...he's kinda a Shaman that lives in the woods that the PCs go and see when their strapped for rituals.


----------



## Rechan (Mar 14, 2010)

> Tomb of Horrors was very popular, and it was *full* of traps and puzzles.



I don't consider ToH to be "traps/puzzles". 

Tomb of Horror can be boiled down to this: "Flip a coin. Tails? You die. Heads? You move to the next flip. Flip a coin..." 

ToH would be the quintessential "Save or Die", but you don't even get saves with many of those things, you just Die. 

I'd like 4e to _never_ do "Oh, you touched the wrong thing? Hand me your character sheet."


----------



## the Jester (Mar 15, 2010)

I just want to speak to the delve format really briefly here.

I really hate having the info split up across multiple books. IMHO Red Hand of Doom had the best format of any module yet- although I wish the stat blocks had been in the body of the text, but I understand how much repetition that would have caused, so I totally see how that would have been impractical. But I hate jumping from book 1 to book 2 to figure out what happens next in a module. That's my big format complaint.


----------



## Whisper72 (Mar 15, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> I'd have to say that would be utterly impossible, as every group plays at a different pace and for a different amount of time each session.
> 
> An adventure that group A might blast through in 2/3 of a session might take group B 2 sessions and group C 6 sessions.  Personally, other than intentional one-offs and minor side-treks I can't remember the last time I ran an adventure all the way through in one session. (admittedly, 4e might be different in this respect; I wouldn't know)
> 
> ...




Although I agree with your assessment that each group has it's own pacing, one way to deal with this is to build into the adventure several 'cliffhanger points' which form logical points to stop te game and name them so. Maybe even complete with suggestions for XP to date etc. Depending upon the speed of play, the DM can aim for one of these points. Naturally this will not cater to everyone's pacings, but still could be helpful for many.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 15, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> While I might not be WotC, maybe I can help. Last year, I started a conversion of Red Hand of Doom, here on this site, in the blog section. Several posters started claiming that I might be breaking the rules of the GSL, and I would bring down law-suits and other bad things(tm) on ENworld. This was around the time where a few sites were being closed by C&D-letters sent by WotC.
> 
> Curious if I had completely misunderstood the GSL, I sent Scott Rouse a PM, asking if such conversions were okay, and he said "don't worry, go ahead" or something along those lines. Now, I never finished the conversion, I grew bored with it, but it should still be there, so that you can see what Scott thought was okay.
> 
> Although my argument probably wouldn't hold in court, I have faith in Scott's call, and wouldn't worry if I ever chose to make another conversion.




That is all well and good but I would feel better if someone from WOTC would chime in and say something to that effect now. How do we know if what Scott said back then has any meaning now? I am very interested in converting and posting some old adventures but will need  some reasonable assurance of being allowed to do so before bothering to put forth the effort.


----------



## MortonStromgal (Mar 15, 2010)

I'm not sure if the OP is still reading but here are my thoughts.

DL1 did a great job of having things happen in the world without the PCs. Tracking what the army did. Thumbs up to that.

B2 did a great job of having an area to run a long term game.

Now some from Shadowrun
Harliquin - Did a great job of mixing up the main plot and keeping the players in the dark till near the end.

Queen Euphoria - WOW! what a surprise for the PCs

Ghost Cartels - I personally like this format way better. I dont enjoy scripted text.


Final thoughts

The world and plot should move regardless of what the players do
The area should have things to do that are outside of the main plot
Surprises are good, let the PCs find them, don't hide them in a GM only section that the PCs will never find out.
There should always be more than 1 solution to a problem
If your going to have box text please include a summery page so experience GMs can glean the story without reading through bad dialog


----------



## Saeviomagy (Mar 15, 2010)

I'll just give a run down of some things that strike me as a player

1. Too many creatures with very high defenses. 

2. Too many daze/stun effects.

3. Too little treasure.

4. Treasure that's too specialised. As an example, one of the early modules gives out bloodcut hide armor. Since at the time only PHB1 was out, the classes that wear hide armour out-of-the-book are... rangers. And even then, many melee rangers will end up in chain. I mean sure, DMs are supposed to tailor treasure to the party, but the default state for treasure shouldn't be "stuff that only one class can/will use".

#1 makes for long fights, #2 exacerbates the problem, and #3+#4 is the candle on the cake.

5. To many villains that seem to be out to get us for no particular reason, and whom we only meet during our final encounter, and whom we only kill because they attack us. Surely SOME of them could meet and annoy us earlier under the trappings of civilisation? I mean, sure, they all keep leaving incriminating signed notes on their minions, so at least we learn their names and some fraction of their evil plans, but it would have been a lot more interesting if we'd actually seen them earlier on, and they HADN'T signed their notes. Then we'd have been chasing a mystery villain and we'd have gotten a plot twist!

6. Too many encounter "gotcha's" where the encounter seems to be telling you to try one tactic, but that tactic is useless.
For instance, in keep on the shadowfell:



Spoiler



why would we expect that shoving the main bad guy into the portal would kill him? Isn't he deliberately opening the portal? Why is there a big tentacled thing there? I thought it was the plane where undead come from, not tentacled monstrosities? A more fitting encounter would have been if undead spilled from the portal throughout the fight.


OR
In Thunderspire:



Spoiler



Paldimar(or possibly some other mage, it's difficult to tell one mage from another) has some pillars, and during the encounter he runs over to one, draws power from it, then blasts the party... Why does he run over to it when he can draw power from it from across the room? It would have been a much more satisfying encounter if he'd needed to be within 2 squares of a pillar to draw power from it: then the encounter would have been based around keeping him away from pillars, a pleasant diversion. As it was, we tried to keep him away from a pillar, and he blasted us anyway...


OR
Again in thunderspire:



Spoiler



the only places so far during the entire game that fireplaces have existed in dwellings, and they're in the dwellings of a race who are highly resistant to fire, duergar.


----------



## Colmarr (Mar 16, 2010)

I'm only a sometimes reader of adventures (I'm mainly a player), but the things I _have_ noticed are:

(most examples are from Dead by Dawn in the latest issue of Dungeon magazine)

1. _Make sure the read aloud text matches the map_ 
(eg. the wight in the rectory is described as being slumped in front of the altar when on the map it is positioned on the other side of the room).

2. _Check the monster stat blocks for errors _
(eg. the hobgoblin zombies have ridiculously high defences - AC 25! Another example is from Rescue at Rivenroar where one of the ettercaps was described as having a "Recharge z" power.

3. _Re-check the adventure after editting the content._
(eg. the adventure refers to an Identifying the Necroshard skill challenge that doesn't exist and was obviously taken out during editting).

The three points above are simple editting errors, and really hurt your ability to present information in a professional way.

I would also agree with some of the earlier posters:

4. _Page counts are not your friend._ 
They limit your ability to set the scene appropriately and give the DM all the information they need to run the game well. An arbitrary count of 1 or 2 pages per encounter will simply result in bad writing and/or presentation.

5. _Tell some innovative stories, and/or tell them in innovative ways._
Dead by Dawn is the first Dungeon adventure that I've gone out of my way to read in quite some time. Why? Because it tells a story that is unusual for D&D. So it was the concept that hooked me.

And once I read it, I found that I liked the way it handled its premise. It told the story in an innovative way. The combination of innovative story and innovative presentation is really calling me to get back in the DMing seat.

Another example is from the old Shackled City campaign. I forget the name of the adventure, but it's the one where the volcano in the middle of the city begins to errupt and fiends appear everywhere. That adventure didn't lay out linear encounters. It said "here are the things your PCs _could_ do. If they successfully complete X of them, they achieve Y. If not, Z happens".

It was an early template for skill challenges, but on an adventure-wide scale. To this day, I remember being impressed by the author's creativity.

Edit: 6. _Not every adventure needs to be a mega-adventure_. 
I personally feel that Keep on the Shadowfell and Thunderspire Labyrinth were too long (although some sections were worse than others). The Chaos Scar and LFR adventures offer a nice alternative - a snack for when you or your players aren't ready to launch into another multi-month adventure.

However, in saying that, I would be very touchy about price for shorter adventures. I'm not sure _how_ touchy, and won't really know until there's a product on a shelf with a price tag attached. I do think though, that shorter adventures are perfect for DDI because DDI doesn't require separate expenditure just to obtain that adventure.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 16, 2010)

I agree that Dead by Dawn is a very good adventure, and one easily played in one session. Kudos to Blackdirge, and I want to see more!


----------



## Ourph (Mar 19, 2010)

My suggestion? Get Chris Perkins and Willie Walsh writing adventures for D&D again. Those guys were the shining stars of TSR-era _Dungeon_ and (while I'm sure Chris is doing great things as D&D creative manager and Willie is a superstar at local government administration) it's an absolute travesty that these guys aren't chained to a desk in the bowels of the WotC writing-dungeons cranking out great, flavor-rich adventures for 4e... IMHO.


----------



## BLACKDIRGE (Mar 19, 2010)

Klaus said:


> I agree that Dead by Dawn is a very good adventure, and one easily played in one session. Kudos to Blackdirge, and I want to see more!




Thanks, Klaus. I've got more in the works. =]

BD


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 19, 2010)

*1) *My #1 critique of _everyone's_ published work is found in my sig- too many publishers these days are relying on computer grammar/spellcheckers when editing and not having enough people look over hard-copies.  I'm constantly seeing glaring errors- I even caught one in _Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell_ by British writer Susanna Clarke.

While I haven't bought many published adventures (by anyone) since the days of 2Ed, i've noticed that WotC's not immune to this issue.  In a wide variety of products, sample character builds, creatures and NPCs have showed up with HP totals or other stats that are incorrect, and its not uncommon to see stat blocks with Feats that the creature/character in question simply doesn't qualify for.

It may seem minor, but for an inexperienced DM, an error of this nature could be a serious problem.

*2) *Pacing is key.  I don't mean the adventure should be a drag-race full of challenge after challenge.  Vary the tempo; let the storyline breathe.

*3) *If possible, try to write the adventure in a fashion that contemplates more than just one outcome.  Perhaps the party can't defeat the BBEG outright (for whatever reason), but maybe they can get him exiled or even negotiate some kind of truce.  In that way, a standalone adventure may provide an adventure seed for subsequent developments within either a WotC product or someone's homebrew campaign.

*4) *I've mentioned this one elsewhere as well: don't assume that a party has access to even the most common of magics.  If you do and they don't, it could create an impassable obstacle.  I haven't seen it recently, but I have seen it in professionally produced adventures...for D&D and other RPGs.

If the adventure writer wants to have an obstacle that can _only _be defeated by (lets say) a particular spell, there should be some way within the written confines of the adventure to obtain that spell, either by NPC, item or treasure.  It doesn't have to be obvious, but it shouldn't be virtually impossible to obtain, either.


----------



## Retreater (Mar 20, 2010)

I'll echo a lot of what people have already stated here.
1) more diversity in opponents, locales
2) shorter dungeons with fewer combat encounters per module

The modules as written now, when we game 2 times per month and we finish an average of 3 encounters a night (on a good night), can easily take us more than 6 months. (If we gamed weekly, it would still be 3 months.) That is way too long, and the players want something with a faster payoff, more immediate gratification.

I'll come out against the chorus of "add more story." I think that story is the function of the DM and the group to add. But I think that if you create compelling NPCs and villains and give them interesting locales, the story will evolve from that. (30 pages of fluff text in a module is just for the DM and rarely gets used by most players. If DMs want that, they should purchase a Salvatore novel, not an adventure novel.)

I think that modules should be playtested. I have run into problems in Keep on the Shadowfell and in Rivenroar module. There are some encounters that are nigh impossible and can easily result in a TPK (Irontooth in KotSF is one of them). A few tough encounters is fine, but don't over-rely on these ... and certainly don't make them vitally important to "winning" the adventure.

Retreater


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 21, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> *1) *My #1 critique of _everyone's_ published work is found in my sig- too many publishers these days are relying on computer grammar/spellcheckers when editing and not having enough people look over hard-copies.  I'm constantly seeing glaring errors- I even caught one in _Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell_ by British writer Susanna Clarke.




And just to reinforce my own point, I just picked up the Players' Guides to Eberron and Forgotten Realms for 4Ed...and within a few minutes of starting my initial read-through, found a reference to "hir and her" in a race's write-up.  Now, "hir" IS a word, but its not a substitute for "his" when used with "her."  A spellchecker could possibly gloss that over, but it might jar a human reader...as it did for me.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 22, 2010)

Retreater said:


> The modules as written now, when we game 2 times per month and we finish an average of 3 encounters a night (on a good night), can easily take us more than 6 months. (If we gamed weekly, it would still be 3 months.) That is way too long, and the players want something with a faster payoff, more immediate gratification.



I disagree.  If my crew grind through a module in two sessions, I don't feel I've got my money's worth out of it.  If it takes 'em three months worth, then I'm happy; and if the players can't wait that long without getting bored then either it's just a crappy module or I'm not doing my job.


> I think that modules should be playtested.



That's what we're for.  Didn't you get the memo? 

Lan-"oh, you mean playtested *before* release"-efan


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Mar 22, 2010)

Late to the thread but I have a simple recommendation to make the modules better. I hope the OP is reading still.

Repeatedly look at the module with an eye towards *eliminating* (unnecessary) *micromanaging* of the adventure. Here are two examples that immediately come to mind.

* Say *just enough*. This lets the DM fill in the blanks as best fits the DMs story. IMO, the more _unnecessary_ exposition by the author, the less well regarded the adventure becomes. 
* Don't have something happening in every room, *empty space* adds tension and lets a DM more easily customize it for their needs.


----------



## nedjer (Mar 22, 2010)

Still no sign of 'the dog in the dark'


----------



## Zinovia (Mar 24, 2010)

*It took me awhile, but here goes.*

Until lately, things have been too busy for me to give this the kind of reply it deserves, sorry for not responding sooner.  

To establish some background: 
I've played RPG's for 27 years, and have been DM'ing nearly that long.  I'm currently running through a slightly leveled-up version of Thunderspire Labyrinth for my group as part of an ongoing War of the Burning Sky campaign.  I tied this into the plot as a means of getting the group to a higher level in order to catch up with the official WoBS 4E conversion.  I've thus had the chance to compare some very different styles of modules for 4E.  I realize that Thunderspire was published very early in the product cycle, but that and Keep on the Shadowfell are the 4E WotC modules that I am most familiar with.  I've read some in Dungeon as well, but haven't run them.  I also have the Dungeon Delves book.  

Let's begin.  

• The Delve Format

I have a love-hate relationship with the delve format.  It both helps and hinders the adventure.  The primary benefit is that it makes running a combat easier by having the layout and statblocks all on a convenient 2 page spread.  Given that I'm up-leveling stuff in Thunderspire, as well as adding more diversity in monster types, adding in more minions (there were virtually none in the original), and otherwise altering the monster stat blocks  by reducing HP and increasing damage because combats were too darn long, the delve format doesn't help me all that much.  I have to print out my monsters separately from the Monster Builder.  But for your average GM, it would be fairly convenient.  I think this works far better for short delves (like in the Delves book) rather than modules with a story where exploration might matter.  

I hate the delve format because it splits up room descriptions over a couple different areas, making it difficult to describe what the characters see when they enter an area.  An example from Thunderspire:  Pages 12 and 14 contain descriptions of some of the features in specific rooms in the Horned Hold.  Page 14 also has General Features that apply to the entire Hold.  Page 13 is the overview map.  There is more detail on specific rooms in the Features of the Area section from the various encounters that are set in those rooms.  If there is a picture as well, that can be found in Book 1.  To describe the appearance of a room in Encounter H4, I need to get info from Page 14 in two different places (specific room number, and General Features), and from page 21.  Furthermore these are organized by room number, but as you can see here;





the room numbers were not on the map on the delve page until I added them.  The Setup text uses these numbers all the time, saying things like "If the PC's approach from the sealed hall (Location 18), the encounter begins when they open the door to the barracks (Location 20) or the guard post (Location 19).  The numbers are vital to the setup, yet *aren't on the map*.  I used a red Sharpie to put them in, because the only place those numbers exist is on the overview map on page 13.  So much for the delve format reducing page-flipping.  

• Lack of Descriptive Text

So what do we know about the room?  How do the guards sound the alarm or summon reinforcements from the other side of the bridge?  What's in that empty room?  Why is there a blood trail carefully rendered on the map of the Well of Demons (including the poster map) that leads to a broom closet?  Or is it a broom closet?  It never does say.  Why is the blood there though?  Is it from the slain adventurers whose ghosts they talk to?  Why *does* it go into that little room?  It's okay to leave some of this kind of thing as an exercise for the DM, but if that's the intent, please state it explicitly so that the DM isn't flipping through the several different pages where he might find descriptions looking for the answers.  Instead, make it clear that there's a mystery here that the DM needs to flesh out.  The players *will* ask about things that are that obvious on the map.  They will go into that room where the blood trail ends, wanting to discover what is there.  If one of the nearly slain adventurers dragged themselves in there to die, then there should be a body, or a spirit they can talk to, or something.  Instead, it's just a mysterious blood trail on the map, leading to a room with no description.  

The descriptions we do have don't fully describe the rooms by any means.  A lot of information that would be useful for the combat setup is located in the overview section, such as the Horned Hold, room 20 - "The duergar in this room are close enough to Location 19 to hear fighting or calls for aid. Rundarr's room is in the north, and a theurge's room is in the south.  The large room includes a fireplace, bunks, and footlockers."  That's better than room 19, which states "Duergar and arbalesters keep watch here", as its sole description.  There's some statues there according to the map, although they aren't mentioned anywhere- what are they statues of?  All we know about statues from the printed info is that they are considered difficult terrain.  

This is a far cry from the kind of description we had in old school modules, which describe features and items that aren't tactically significant in any way.  Like A4, In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords - there's a description of a waterfall and catch pool below it, with a much-repaired fish trap suspended in the falls.  The pool's depth is mentioned (since players are always fooling with things), and there's a niche containing bone knives, scraping tools, a skin full of fish oil, and a bunch of rotting fish heads.  Now granted in that module, the group is stripped of possessions, so flint knives and containers of oil are useful to them.  The description ends with "There are also two kobolds in this room, a male and female.  Both will run to aid the males in 6B.  The tactical considerations come after a clear description of the predominate features.  

I like the mushroom garden description from A4 as an example of an interesting area where the only dangerous things are some fire beetles that won't attack unless someone gets within 5 feet of them.  It's a humid cavern with a stream, stalactites, stalagmites, and fungus of many colors and shapes, including 9' tall giant mushrooms with thick stalks.  There's a flickering orange glow coming from the fire beetles.  Already I have a better feel for this place than for any given room in the Horned Hold.  It's also clear what's in there, that the mushrooms aren't dangerous, that the fire beetles are, but they aren't especially aggressive, and that you can use glands from the fire beetles to make  a light source that will make light in a 10' area for 1d6 days.  That is cool and interesting, and encourages creativity.  

• Too Many (Difficult) Combats

As a player of mine said after a very bad session running 2 tough combats back to back, "Sometimes you just want to run through Deadmines with your level 80 guy and kick some butt!".  Why are pretty much all the fights in 4E modules so darned hard?  Can't we have more mook guards that can be taken out easily (and quickly!)?  Why does every encounter have to be balanced for the party?  The answer is likely that a quick easy encounter doesn't expend resources in 4E.  You regain all your encounter powers in a short rest, so unless it cost you a surge, there were no resources expended. 

So what?  Let the group have some easy and quick fights.  Stuff that you don't need to spend an hour on.  Let them kick some butt and show off how powerful they are.  They're adventurers!  If you put a single lurker on the cave roof, it isn't a level-appropriate challenge for the group, but it can still drop on someone and cost them a surge or two.  It's still scary and exciting.  Don't balance every fight all the time, and especially don't make every fight the ultimate "OMG we're gonna die" fight.  It gets old and saps excitement from the fights that should actually be edge-of-your-seat scary.  It also dominates the session too much because of the time involved in running level-appropriate fights.  

• Lack of Exploration / Flavor

I covered this a bit above, but it's disappointing in 4E modules that there often is no description of empty rooms, or empty rooms at all.  There aren't places that are cool, or interesting without somehow being tactical.  In many of the modules, there isn't even much in the way of fun terrain to have your combats in.  Just square rooms with unspecified statues.  No mention of rugs, tapestries, slimy mold on the walls, dripping stalactites, or much of anything else.  Look more kobolds in a square room.  /yawn.  

• Lack of Interesting Puzzles

I like puzzles and riddles.  Where'd they go?  They seem to be an iconic part of D&D that got left on the cutting room floor when 4E was being designed.  That makes me sad.  I realize there are some, such as one in Pyramid of Shadows with the keys, but the clues are kind of lame (First in hardness, not in place? - really?), and I took the great illustration associated with it (the three keys and keyholes with the sun, moon, and stars) rewrote all the clues, and recycled it for my current adventure.  I will likewise be redesigning the trials in the minotaur proving grounds area for Thunderspire, to make a couple of them more about puzzle solving and less about combat. 

• Organization Issues

Splitting info between books of the adventure can be somewhat annoying.  It's hard to find descriptions of NPCs in any concise way; they are often split among locations, or in an encounter where you are questioning people.  It's hard to find the info when you need it.  I think Book 1 could be the main adventure, and book 2 could be the pretty illustrations to show players along with stats for monsters, and the maps.  

• Not Knowing the BBEG's Plot or Motivation

The DM may know why Paldemar (Thunderspire) is doing whatever it is he's doing, but the players really never meet him or interact with him in any way.  It's worse for Kalarel in Keep on the Shadowfell, who they have no way of learning about if you run the mod as written.  Sure there's a lot of backstory, but no means of communicating it to the players.  If I wanted to read a novel, I'd do that.  I want information that matters when running the game, so writing backstory isn't enough.  There has to be a way to get it into play or it doesn't count.  Why would the characters care enough about these guys to be really satisfied when they finally slay the BBEG of the mod?  As written, they don't.  

• Dangling Plot Threads / Poor Story Development

So getting the mirror from the dragon burial site in Keep on the Shadowfell does what exactly?  How does it matter in any way?  Why is it even there if it doesn't make it easier to disrupt the ritual somehow?  That kind of thing is a failure to make meaningful connections between elements of the story.  You want to reward the players for being clever, for going the extra mile, and for using the plot devices that you handed to them in the first place.  Here, there's no reason to because gee, that thing that seemed so important is utterly meaningless in the end.  If you introduce some device in the story, don't forget about it later.  Make it matter.  The decisions the characters make in the course of the adventure likewise need to matter.  There needs to be a reward for smart thinking, paying attention to the story, and clever planning using the knowledge you've gained.  Fewer "Even if the group tries to negotiate, use a disguise, or a clever ruse, the bad guys figure it out and attack as soon as anyone comes in the room."  meh.  That's tedious.  

Hopefully that's somewhat helpful.  I'd like to see more room by room descriptions, tied to a numbered map.  Describe the creatures there, but I'm thinking the delve format is causing more issues of page-flipping than it solves.  Put the stat blocks in the other book, along with the maps.  You have some great artists working for you, and many of the maps and illustrations of the major scenes of the dungeons are really well-drawn.  Please don't always make your maps built solely with dungeon tiles; not all of us use them.  (They don't come in hex! )  

The current splitting of room descriptions between the delve format encounters and the general overview on another page, and lack of detail in those descriptions really discourages exploration and the feeling that some ground is being covered.  If all you get done is two fights out of a huge module in the course of a 4 hour session it feels like no real progress is being made.  All too often, that's what it's like.  

I have to make up answers rather than replying "I have no idea" when players ask about stuff in the module.  That's okay if they ask something really detailed or unusual, but "What's in the trunk?" shouldn't be that way.  Treasure is another failure in many modules (at least the older ones I have the most experience with).  There isn't much of it, and often it doesn't fit well with the parcel system.  Newer mods may have fixed that somewhat. 

To sum up (The TLDR version): Better skill challenges, better terrain, more terrain powers, more exploration, more puzzles, more accessible story (not just DM summary info), more easy fights, and make the tough ones really epic.  Less combat, less grind.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 19, 2010)

I think it is nice you are reaching out for feedback. 

I haven't made the transition to 4E, and one of the reasons is the 4E modules. When 4E was first coming out, I bought the core books (well the DMG and the PHB) and I played a few sessions. Then I put the books away thinking I might run a game down the road. Once I saw the the first modules, I decided not to make the transition to 4E, but instead to go with Pathfinder (since I only have limited time and a limited budget and both games appeared to be a significant investment). I guess I just wanted more classic-styled adventures. When I looked at the 4E modules they looked like a bunch of encounters and, to be honest, the material looked more suited for a table top board game than a role playing game to me. There also didn't appear to be much material in the books (lots of white space and diagrams, but not a whole lot of text). Encounters are always good to have, but as  I GM I usually scour modules for NPCs, adventure ideas, etc. Most of my adventures don't focus on combat so much, so the modules don't really do it for me.

Thinking back, I believe I first noticed an issue with WOC modules when they redid the original Ravenloft Module. Again, that really seemed more built around encounters and a battle grid, than the classic gothic adventure I remembered. Really I think if I had to sum up my issue: bring back a focus on story, setting and characters.


----------



## smetzger (Apr 20, 2010)

I really liked running RttToEE.   I think a large part of this was the community support that was and still is on Monte's boards.  So anyway that you can foster and encourage that kind of support would be good.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 20, 2010)

Zinovia - what an excellent analysis. I've posted a link to your article on twitter; with any luck, it'll bring the attention of some Wizards staff to it. 

(Rodney, have you been reading this thread?)

The lack of puzzles is extremely puzzling (hah!) because the 4e DMG has the best section on puzzles of any D&D core book! (It actually has a section to start with).

I'm just starting on P3: Assault on Nightwyrm Fortress. Both P1 and P2 have been better than the H series, but we're still lacking what I consider to be adequate descriptions, mysteries and just stuff that allow the game to become something more than the plot and monsters. The world needs more fleshing out through trivia discovered in adventures. It really is a great world that is the default setting of 4e, but we need more!

Cheers!


----------



## Jonathan Walton (Apr 20, 2010)

So I'm not a regular 4E player anymore but I think I'm right in the target market for what you're trying to do with 4E, at least among the older generation, not the kids.  I grew up playing Robotech, have been playing mostly indie games for the past few years, but was really excited about the possibilities of 4E (having never played D&D before), bought the core books and ran it for a while before getting really frustrated creating adventures that were not very fun and not having any good examples to help me know how to make better ones.  Here are some bullet points from my frustrating experiences:

1. All adventures need to include all the maps needed to play at full size, so I can photocopy them, or at least include a link where I can download them and print them out. Otherwise they are useless to me. Why have your map artists create beautiful maps if I can't use them in play?

2. Likewise, I want tokens for all monsters and interactive objects on the map. You should make it really, really easy for me to run this, not force me to use chess pawns or whatever else I have lying around.

3. You need to make the players and the characters care about the adventure. If the bad guys have kidnapped somebody I've never heard of, I don't care. If we're descending into a mysterious dungeon that we know nothing about, we don't care.  It's hard to tell writers how to make something interesting if they don't know how, but clearly a lot of the adventure writers don't really know how to do this, or they're trying to make the stories so general -- so they can fit into any campaign -- that there's nothing gripping to sink your teeth into.  

We have to both know about what's going on (mysteries are not interesting in and of themselves) and have some immediate, personal connection to it. The example early in this thread of adding a burning house to the beginning of Keep on the Shadowfell is a great example. Boom, we're saving people from being burned alive or at least taking revenge. Suddenly it's more personal. Or set up situations right off the bat.  Have you seen John Harper's free indie scenario, "Lady Blackbird"? It starts with the characters in the brig of a ship, having been captured for flying a false flag.  And the first question the GM asks is "How do you escape?"  Boom, everything's off to a flying start. Starting in media res is one great way to do this, but not the only one.

4. The encounters themselves seemed really repetitive in all the published adventures I played. We'd go to a room, fight a bit, never really be in danger, heal some hitpoints, and then move on and do it again.  If the characters are never really in danger in 4E, they don't really get to make interesting questions.  PC death is not really that scary; making new characters in 4E is fun! Or at least there need to be more dynamic choices to make, choices that actually matter.  Like, you can do A or B but not both! Or you can do two of A, B, and C (or maybe only one of those if you mess it up)!

5. The NPCs need to want something from the players.  Not something concrete necessary, but they need to have a clear agenda and guidelines for how they are going to pursue it, both if the PCs intervene and if they don't (or if they assist them!).  They shouldn't simply be standing around waiting for the PCs get there, so the encounter can finally start.  The world should feel like it's alive, not static.  Like, if the PCs delay and decide to rest, the NPCs keep pursuing their agenda.  Forget earning Action Points; that's where the true consequences of spending time healing should come from.

6. Published adventures should do more than be solid adventures, of the kind I could make myself given time and experience.  They should be SUPER INSPIRATIONAL THINGS that push forward the boundaries of what D&D can do.  You should have players saying to each other in game stores: "Dude, have you played 'Curse of the Midnight Marauder,' yet? Holy Crap, there's this amazing part where you fight vampire bats on this magical moving staircase that wraps around the outside of an ancient tower that's falling apart as you climb it."  Published adventures have the freedom to prep more than any reasonable GM will have time to do in their week. They should be the equivalent of the coolest video game you can imagine, not just the standard stuff.

7. In general, things need to be both super accessible / easy to run and utterly fearless and mindblowing.  Right now, they're both opaque and weaksauce, which is what I found so disappointing.  I want to run a fight inside the stomach of a dragon and I want everything I need to run it, right at my fingertips. Seems like D&D should be able to do that.


----------



## metaDM (Apr 20, 2010)

I'm going to talk about my experience with WotC publiushed adventures in the first paragraph and my ideas for improving them in the second paragraph. The WotC adventures I have run my players through and read have been lacking. The number one issue I have with them is they quickly devolve into a grind of back to back encounters with little to differentiate between them. When I started a Forgotten Realms campaign soon after the release of 4E, I started running my players through Specter Tower of Spellgard. The adventure started out interesting enough. The players were above ground in the ruins of Spellguard. The interacted with several groups, explored the area and fought off ambushes from kobolds, etc. As soon as the PCs made it to the wall, the game turned into 3 months of back to back lackluster encounters. The adventure was very linear - especially once the PCs reached the Scepter Tower. At the time, I had the distinct impression I was putting my players through a grind - like we were playing WoW or EQ. When my players were about halfway up the tower, I couldn't take it anymore. I just through the adventure in my box in digust and said, "You see the Lady Saharel. She doesn't have much to say. The end." I went home and started writing my first adventure that very night. I read through the other WotC adventures and didn't see much I liked. Thunderspire Labyrinth had some intersting parts though. I like adventures that have more story to them and have surprises and shocking reveals. If the PCs know what is coming next, I'm not doing my job. I think an adventure that shows the types of adventures I like is DCC #53 Sellswords of Punjar.

I have a few ideas for improving WotC adventures. First off, the gaming population is mature. I wish WotC adventures dealt with more adult themes. I'm not talking about centerfold handouts, but adult themes - the equivalent of an HBO series - would be greatly appreciated. I'm an adult. I can handle adult themes like torture, rape, homosexual characters and sexuality. Think Dragon Age. We don't see these types of subjects broached due to the terms of the GSL. If a 3PP could have their license revoked at any time, they aren't going to push the boundaries. I'm sure Hasbro has WotC's hands tied behind its back on this one, but you could spin off a new arm (akin to the what Vertigo is to DC comics) and use that to release new creative content. My other idea is to restructure the rules to award more experience for out of combat encounters. Skill challenges were a good start, but they fall short. I don't know any DMs who run SCs as written. The good ones use a more freeform, collective story-telling style. Assume that as the starting point for "Skill Challenges 2.0." Work on some mechanics for rewarding more experience out of combat. Here is a rant about skill challenges on my blog. Combat in 4E just takes too long. So incentivise players to not spend the entire gaming session in combat. That means award more experience out of combat and maybe even award more experience in combat for skill checks, etc. I played with my group every week for ten months -starting at level 1 - and they ended up at level 7.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 20, 2010)

metaDM said:


> I have a few ideas for improving WotC adventures. First off, the gaming population is mature. I wish WotC adventures dealt with more adult themes. I'm not talking about centerfold handouts, but adult themes - the equivalent of an HBO series - would be greatly appreciated. I'm an adult. I can handle adult themes like torture, rape, homosexual characters and sexuality.




I think its more likely that "the _>majority of<_ gaming population is mature." (edited by me).

To that end, a series of PG-17/R/Rated M or whatever you want to call it adventure paths might actually be a good idea.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 20, 2010)

For those criticising the Wizards adventures, have you yet played the Paragon adventures?


----------



## Zinovia (May 13, 2010)

I haven't had the chance to play through any of the paragon adventures from WotC yet, although I do have a copy of P1: King of the Trollhaunt Warrens.  

Upon initial read, it seems to provide more in the way of advice for groups that get creative and use a novel approach to the entrance to the big warren.  There are answers to what the trolls may do if adventurers try to talk or trick their way in, as mine are won't to do; answers beyond "they see through any disguise or ruse and attack immediately".  At least a bit - once the troll king gets there, he "attacks the moment he sees the party".    

Unfortunately it still suffers from the breakup of the room descriptions among multiple pages, requiring page flipping.  For instance, the Great Warren is described in general on pages 6 and 7 (book 2), the map is a two page spread on pp 8-9, and is nicely illustrated.  When the players enter the room, you need the picture from page 26 of Book 1, the block text from Encounter W1 on page 10, and the description of the room on page 6 including info such as the DC to force or squeeze through the gate.  The Features of the Area section is better than many from previous adventures in that it answers stuff my group is always asking, such as which way the door is hinged.  They *always* want to know that. . 

There seem to be a number of rooms that don't contain encounters; again a big improvement over the H series.  The descriptions of these areas are better and more detailed, including a bit of treasure the PC's may stumble across.  

I have't read the whole thing, so I can't comment on how well integrated the plot is, or whether the group knows or cares about the BBEG.  There seems to be an attack on the town partway through the dungeon crawl portion, much like in H1, and like that mod, the PC's will only hear about it if they head back to town.  Many groups are stubborn about returning to town in the middle of assaulting a dungeon, and with good reason.  If you leave, they can build up defenses and bring in reinforcements.  

From what I have heard, many of the fights in this mod are grindy, without presenting a good challenge for characters of this level.  Some of this is intrinsic with trolls being the main enemy.  I do note that WotC doesn't believe in having easy encounters.  Most are level 11-13 with one at level 10, and as you progress, they go up in difficulty a little bit.  

I certainly haven't given this module a proper evaluation, but I would say that while descriptive text has been expanded and improved, there are still some issues.  There are many many encounters, most of which are fights.  The skill challenges are far less stupid than the ones in the early modules, and might be usable without extensive rewriting.  I would have to reduce the number of encounters, and make some easier by using minions, while making sure the tough fights were memorable in some way.  Otherwise my group would get bored with months of slogging through fight after fight with the trolls.

What they need to do is to make a good first level module that doesn't suck and can be run by a new DM without modification.  It's good to see some of the problems being addressed in the paragon modules, but where you most need modules to be well-designed and easy to run is at the starting levels.  Make them fun with an engaging story, and cut down the number of combats.  Reduce the number of levels covered by each module so a group can finish a story and move onto something new in less than six months of play time.  Many groups can't play on a weekly basis, and it gets old doing the same old thing over and over, against the same foes.


----------



## Rechan (May 13, 2010)

Instead of just providing a single hook between one adventure to the next, how about a few paragraphs about how one might link the adventure to the rest of the adventures? If you want a cohesive campaign where you run all of the published modules, it shouldn't be a chore to link them together. Some advice on how to do that would be nice. (especially early on).


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 13, 2010)

I already responded but it occurred to me that mentioning the kinds of modules that I enjoyed would be helpful. 

I really started playing D&D with 2e, and my first experience with modules were the 1E and 2E modules that came out in the 80s and 90s. For me, the quality of TSR modules seemed to hit a peak between late 80s to mid 90s. The crowning gem, in my opinion, being Feast of Goblyns. That is just me. I don't know how many would agree or disagree. However I did perceive a serious drop in module quality when 3E came out (and I loved the 3E system, just not the modules made by wizards of the coast). I found Paizo's material during that period to be pretty high quality stuff (though I still missed the 2E modules).


----------



## pneumatik (May 13, 2010)

I've read part of the thread. I've notice a few times when people mention columns or books that WotC has published on how to be a better DM. They apparently give advice on making good villains, not railroading PCs, making locations come alive, etc. I don't get the impression it's anything groundbreaking, but it's all good stuff. 

So it's obvious people at WotC know a lot of rules and advice on writing good adventures. Collect that advice someone and give it to an editor. Not a grammar and layout editor, an adventure editor. The adventure editor will go through the draft adventure and check it against each piece of advice. Compelling villain? Check. Not a complete railroad? Check. I'm not saying the adventure needs to follow every single piece of advice, but the author should have a good reason why they ignore any of it. I think that would solve a lot of the problems, or at least get all the low-hanging fruit.


----------



## Jeffrey (May 17, 2010)

This thread deserves to be stickied. 

TONS of good input here. This is the most valuable thread I have read on ENworld to date


----------



## Jeffrey (May 18, 2010)

Rodney, if you are still reading, here is my thought.

Let loose of your designers. 

Let them do more then just design encounters and string them together.

These are creative people. Let them write something *dangerous*.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 18, 2010)

"Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the designers of RPG adventures!"


----------



## ourchair (Jun 11, 2010)

So... have the adventures improved? 

I'd really like to know, in the wake of HS1 Slaying Stone and any new adventures being pumped out through Dungeon.


----------



## nedjer (Jun 11, 2010)

metaDM said:


> I have a few ideas for improving WotC adventures. First off, the gaming population is mature. I wish WotC adventures dealt with more adult themes. I'm not talking about centerfold handouts, but adult themes - the equivalent of an HBO series - would be greatly appreciated. I'm an adult. I can handle adult themes like torture, rape, homosexual characters and sexuality. Think Dragon Age. We don't see these types of subjects broached due to the terms of the GSL. If a 3PP could have their license revoked at any time, they aren't going to push the boundaries.




Why stop there; throw in more 'adult' themes like ~examples removed under the grandma rule~.

Then there can be exactly three of you sitting in your bathchairs playing 'adult games' 14, while the nurses spit in your food.


----------



## wedgeski (Jun 11, 2010)

ourchair said:


> I'd really like to know, in the wake of HS1 Slaying Stone and any new adventures being pumped out through Dungeon.



It'll be some time before any advice taken from this thread finds its way into a published adventure, I'm sure.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 11, 2010)

MerricB said:


> For those criticising the Wizards adventures, have you yet played the Paragon adventures?




No experience with paragon adventures except Revenge of the Giants. One read through was enough to convince me to avoid them. 

~ edited out quote from nedjer, since the original post was edited ~


----------



## Grymar (Jun 11, 2010)

Jeffrey said:


> This thread deserves to be stickied.
> 
> TONS of good input here. This is the most valuable thread I have read on ENworld to date




Agreed. I've learned more about managing encounters, maps and adventures in my own campaign in this thread than just about any other. 

Of course it has eaten up most of my day getting through it all, so don't tell my boss.


----------



## Festivus (Jun 11, 2010)

I can't help but think that a few of the improvments seen in the latest adventure could have come from here.  Howling Stone has smaller maps on the pages, in non-linear, had some motivations and pecking orders, etc.  If you are listening still, thank you!


----------



## MerricB (Jun 11, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> No experience with paragon adventures except Revenge of the Giants. One read through was enough to convince me to avoid them.




Although P3 isn't very good, P2 stands up as one of the classics of the genre.

Cheers!


----------



## Imaro (Jun 12, 2010)

ourchair said:


> So... have the adventures improved?
> 
> I'd really like to know, in the wake of HS1 Slaying Stone and any new adventures being pumped out through Dungeon.





I will say that I think so. I haven't finished reading through HS1 yet but with what little I have read...I already like it 100 times more that KotS.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 12, 2010)

Festivus said:


> I can't help but think that a few of the improvments seen in the latest adventure could have come from here.  Howling Stone has smaller maps on the pages, in non-linear, had some motivations and pecking orders, etc.  If you are listening still, thank you!



You mean Slaying stone?


----------



## Festivus (Jun 13, 2010)

Rechan said:


> You mean Slaying stone?





Bah, yeah, meant slaying stone, thanks.


----------



## Smeelbo (Jun 19, 2010)

*You may not want to hear this, but:*

*1) Editing.* Most of the adventures you publish, while crediting an editor, don't appear to actually have been edited. They are full of typos, errors, inconsistancies, lame story elements, badly designed encounters, NPCs that lack credible motivations, groups of NPCs who cannot possibly cooperate _(for example, no languages in common), _maps that don't match the written description _(or is it the other way around), _and awful tactics. In general, it takes me dozens of hours to _"edit" _your published adventures, and if they weren't a store function, I wouldn't run them at all. In general, they are amateurish to the point of being personally embarrassing to run.

*2) Verisimilitude. *Most adventures make hardly any sense on any level. The motivations of the NPCs are often incomprehensible, their strategy and tactics are counterproductive, the quest makes little or no sense, and in general, it is unrewarding for the players to attempt to reason about the situation. Every time I have to explain something lame, or act as if it isn't lame, I feel like a whore.

*3) Challenging Enemy Tactics. *Monsters tactics rarely rise above the level of _"suicide by adventurer." _Tactics blocks give the lamest advice, and almost never make good use of creature powers or cooperation. For example, flying creatures never take advantage of their ability to fly, but instead invariable close with the characters. If 4E is supposed to emphasize tactics, why are monster tactics so stupid? 

*4) Terrain.* Every combat, the party is largely going to use the same few _At-Will _and _Encounter _powers, and the monsters will have an even smaller number of powers available to them. Interesting terrain that can be used by both sides creatively will make for much more variety in combat. Mostly, what I see is a haphazard mish mosh of pits, bridges, water, and difficult terrain, laid out with no apparent forethought, and which the monsters appear to make little or no use of.

*5) Minimize Grind*. Most combats appear to written with the notion that the best way to have a more challenging combat is to increase monster defenses and hit point. I have found that most combats take 8 rounds or more, which it at least 3 rounds too long. Better tactics and terrains are a much better challenge.

*6) Don't Force Lame Skill Challenges.* Because, as published, _Skill Challenges _are _a priori _broken, and nothing has been done to improve them, we instead get these arbitrarily modified challenges that force the players to participate. Instead, it's time to admit that _Skill Challenges _are a failure, and offer an alternate mechanism that actually works. As written, unless all characters are forced to participate, the rational response to a skill challenge is always to have the character with the best chance make all the rolls, and for all characters with sub-optimal skills to avoid rolling at all. You know this: that is why almost all recently published _Skill Challenges _include some mechanism to force characters to roll.

The solution is trivial. The reason _Skill Challenges _are _a priori _a failed design is that failed rolls mostly count against the party, and so in order to succeed, the party should avoid failed skill checks. Thus, only the best characters should roll. Instead, _Skill Challenges _should be limited not by a number of failures, but by a number of rounds, with all successes counting towards the party, but with minimal penalties for any individual failed roll. So for example, if a challenge lasted three rounds, and the outcome depended on the number of successes the party as a whole attained, then it is in the party's interest to have all characters roll, since they could all contribute successes. If the party exceeds the required number of successes, then they gain some advantage, while if they fall short, they pay some cost for failure. The margin of success or failure could determine different results.

*7) Accountability. *There is a section for credits, but on the whole, it appears the persons credited do their jobs poorly, if at all. Why do these people have jobs? In theory, I purchase an adventure to save me the time of creating it myself, but when I find myself spending dozens of hours de-_lamifying_ the adventure as published, why did I give up my cash? It would take me fewer hours to create an adventure from scratch, and it would be a much better experience for the players and myself. There are a lot of people without jobs, why can it possibly be that someone is collecting an hourly wage putting out such crap? If it a gardner, a maid, or a carpet layer did as poor a job as most adventure production teams, I would be giving them negative reviews on _Angie's List, _and I wouldn't hire them again. Why should I give you guys a pass?

I sell a lot of _D&D_ books, but with the exception of introductory adventures, the rest just sit on the shelf. It's gotten to the point that I only bring enough copies of an published adventure to sell to the few completists, but no more, and I don't worry about re-stocking them.

*Smeelbo*


----------



## knightofround (Jun 20, 2010)

This thread is great, even though I've only read the first 5 pages.

I haven't read too much of the 4E adventure path because I didn't want to spoil the story just in-case I participated in it. However I can re-emphasize points already made in this thread.

1. Variety is key. I think a big reason why WotC adventures are so unpopular is that they are all so vanilla. I'm sure that many people out there enjoy the PoL heavy combat grindfest, and that's great. But you need more ideas, you need try new stuff instead of recycling old stuff that worked. You need one-shot modules, and you also need mega-adventures that cover an entire tier. With the 3E and 4E paths you try to do both, and end up doing both poorly.

2. Ditch the delve in the printed edition. Focus on making the story better, the NPCs better, descriptive text better, the enemy tactics better. WotC adventures tend to be very heavy on the stat blocks and sheer quantity of encounters, rather than quality. 

3. Market the author. Open up Dungeon to fan submissions, and ask for specific themes. Use that as a tool to fish for freelancers. You can get a lot of really good content that with very little cost. I want Monte Cooks, I want Keith Bakers, I don't want a generic project built by an editor from a couple different authors.

4. More text, less dead space. Again, cut out the stat blocks. Cut out the artwork. I would much, much rather purchase an incredibly well-fleshed out module with brilliant ideas, characters, and combat situations, than have pretty maps, pictures, and handouts. Focus more on encounter quality and less on encounter quantity. Make fights dynamic depending upon the player's previous decisions, use terrain, use tactics, provide noncombat solutions, use waves of attackers...etc etc

5. Open up to the fan base. Use the DDI to Wikify or make a forum each product, so players can submit additional material. Use it to showcase additional material that didn't make the cut in the editing. Provide stat block chunks organized by product so people who like the delve can print them out as need. All this will increase subscription to DDI, which is really the only advantage WotC adventures have over 3PP adventures now. And it gets you folks extra revenue. 

Find writers that are willing to participate with the community. My favorite WotC adventure module was Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, not so much because of the adventure itself...but because it had a very strong community behind it. Those fan submissions gave the module a TON of added value at 0 extra cost to the publisher. Some of the stuff the fans put out is absolutely crazy; full edition conversions, "hard modes" or "easy modes" of encounters, updated material from WotC supplements produced *after* the adventure was published, updated material from official errata, beautiful handouts, alternate ways to run NPCs, alternate endings, alternate storylines, the whole works.

Grow your product by growing the community!


----------



## Freakohollik (Jun 21, 2010)

I realize I'm late to the thread, and I don't know if this has been said already, but the adventures need to be more unique and memorable.

A few years back, Dungeon printed a list of what it considered to be the 30 greatest adventures of all time. I'll mention a few and why they were great.

Expedition to the Barrier Peaks - It's a wrecked spaceship. All kinds of crazy futuristic items and monsters.

Tomb of Horrors - Clever traps. Entirely about the players figuring out how to cautiously advance rather than grinding through combats.

City of Skulls - A rescue mission into a prison. The adventure does a great job setting up the situation so that you'll need to use stealth and roleplaying.

Assassins Knot - A murder mystery, but if the PCs ask too many questions, the villains will take notice and the PCs will be in a bad situation.

All those adventures have a hook. Something exciting. Something unique that made them memorable. From what I've seen of the 4e modules they all tend to be, "go to ruin/hole in the ground, kill hordes of something".


----------



## Aegeri (Jun 21, 2010)

> *6) Don't Force Lame Skill Challenges.*  Because, as published, _Skill Challenges _are _a priori _broken,  and nothing has been done to improve them, we instead get these  arbitrarily modified challenges that force the players to participate.  Instead, it's time to admit that _Skill Challenges _are a failure,  and offer an alternate mechanism that actually works. As  written, unless all characters are forced to participate, the  rational response to a skill challenge is always to have the  character with the best chance make all the rolls, and for all  characters with sub-optimal skills to avoid rolling at all. You know  this: that is why almost all recently published _Skill Challenges _include  some mechanism to force characters to roll.
> 
> The solution is trivial. The reason _Skill Challenges  _are _a priori _a failed design is that failed rolls mostly  count against the party, and so in order to succeed, the party should avoid  failed skill checks. Thus, only the best characters should roll.  Instead, _Skill Challenges _should be limited not by a number of failures,  but by a number of rounds, with all successes counting  towards the party, but with minimal penalties for any individual failed  roll. So for example, if a challenge lasted three rounds, and the  outcome depended on the number of successes the party as a whole  attained, then it is in the party's interest to have all  characters roll, since they could all contribute successes. If the party  exceeds the required number of successes, then they gain some  advantage, while if they fall short, they pay some cost for failure. The  margin of success or failure could determine different results.





I had to pick this out for emphasis because this is the number 1 problem with skill challenges. PCs shouldn't be forced to roll because they don't want to roll otherwise. That's just completely dumb on multiple levels, especially because every failure punishes the _entire party_ far too much. It would be like having 3 rolls in combat decide the entire fight, which is just not something that should happen in 4th edition.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 21, 2010)

Freakohollik said:


> Expedition to the Barrier Peaks - It's a wrecked spaceship. All kinds of crazy futuristic items and monsters.
> 
> Tomb of Horrors - Clever traps. Entirely about the players figuring out how to cautiously advance rather than grinding through combats.



... and that's two adventure modules right there that I consider to be among the worst. I cannot comment on the other two, since I haven't read or run them, but I have a suspicion, I would not rate them high, either.

Considering the latest WotC module releases (Hammerfast, Slaying Stone), I guess, they're already on the right track.


----------



## nedjer (Jun 21, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> ... and that's two adventure modules right there that I consider to be among the worst. I cannot comment on the other two, since I haven't read or run them, but I have a suspicion, I would not rate them high, either.
> 
> Considering the latest WotC module releases (Hammerfast, Slaying Stone), I guess, they're already on the right track.




Tomb of Horrors - the best and the worst. So railroady it's got tracks, but the panic in the blood, flood door room is stuck with me to this day.


----------



## Zaran (Jun 21, 2010)

Here are things I've noticed:

1. Magic item drops are too few when compared to the recommended.

2. The modules are WAY too long.  I would rather there be 10 encounters that are detailed out with map posters and such than 30 encounters that are designed to take the PCs through 4 levels.  If there were 10 encounters and a bunch of non-combat situations that would be even better.  I think if you want to make the modules bigger than divide up the adventure into chapters so the PCs can rest and train up between them and have new goals to give the game more variety.  

3. If you make it so you module covers less levels, the GM won't have to railroad the PCs as much because they won't accidently wander into a fight that's too high because they skipped something.  So I guess this would be "Too much railroading built in"

4.  I have run into a couple of modules where the final battle is just a little too high level or is coupled with some outside effect that makes it extremely difficult.   Especially when the encounters before are almost as difficult and the PCs had to use a few dailies.  I think if the modules were designed with the recommended encounter levels that the DMG advises this wouldn't be an issue.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Jun 21, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> Considering the latest WotC module releases (Hammerfast, Slaying Stone), I guess, they're already on the right track.



Agreed.  These products are my default recommendations for beginning DMs or DMs otherwise looking for 1st-level adventures, not Chaos Scar or Scales of War or Keep on the Shadowfell.  They're noticeably more open-ended, more concise, and have strong hooks.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 21, 2010)

I really have one suggestion: Make 'em shorter (which appears to be at least somewhat happening). I'm kind of thinking of the 1E "Against The Giants" or the like where they were actually multiple "modules" originally. "Decent" lead to "Vault" lead to "Demonweb". While player advancement happens faster in 4E, some of the modules cover IMO WAY too much ground. 

Sure I could split and take, but I also want more maps.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jun 22, 2010)

I'll echo what others are saying and say that WotC modules (or at least KotS and Pyramid) are overloaded with grindy, boring combat encounters.  In both cases I had to remove a good number of useless fights, and in Pyramid I also made most of the various NPCs there more open to negotiation and less hostile in general.

I suspect that the only reason my group had any fun with these two modules was because I heavily edited them.  They really turned me off to WotC modules, since if I need to do lots of editing I might as well just come up with something on my own for free.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jun 22, 2010)

My problem with the WotC modules has been mainly that there's little or no plot.  I played up through P2 before things fell apart and it really felt strained because there was nothing tying the adventures together.  I've heard the same thing about Scales of War - a real Adventure Path is like what Paizo does; they outline the entire campaign in the preview, so the DM/GM knows what's going to be in the next adventure.  They flesh things out, there are hooks.

Also, I found the early adventures were VERY skimpy on the loot, and had a TON of mindless, boring fights.  Pretty much everything was "They attack you on sight" and "They fight until the death", and the treasure was really few and far between, so much that I found our defenses were not scaling appropriately to the monsters and the further we got, the more we were getting demolished by encounters, and everything eventually turned into a total meat grinder that took all our dailies to overcome.

Now, I don't know if some of these issues have been addressed in later modules.  But the main thing I have to say is, if you're doing an ADVENTURE PATH then do an Adventure Path.  Because the H/P/E series was a loose collection of adventures with a common theme, not an AP (and the 3.0 ones were the same way, I heard).  Scales of War was touted as an adventure path, and was again just a collection of adventures in the same locale with kind of a plot but nothing really tying them together.  Compare this to any of the Paizo APs, including the old ones they did in the 3.5 days, and it's a world of difference.

Also, another thing that bothers me with the 4E adventures I've seen is, as others have stated, the shoddy editing and nonsensical encounters.  Most monsters aren't given any advice of how to operate properly, and really the entire combat does play out like an MMO - your defender gets "aggro" and the rest is history.  Also, I may be the only one, but I'm sick to death of "hazards" in nearly every encounter that *only affect the PCs*.  I recall vividly an encounter in H3 where you're fighting on ice, and every time you move you need to make a check to avoid falling prone, or something like that.  EVERY.  SINGLE.  TIME.  Except it's just you, because the enemies are "adept at moving across ice" and can do so without penalty.  Hazards are good if they add to the encounter; one of my favorites to this day is the from the adventure in back of the 3.5 Eberron book, where you're in a sewer and there are valves that shoot off randomly every round.  They had a minor effect (prone, again, as I recall) but they could affect both you OR your enemy.  This is a good hazard.  A hazard which is basically "Give the monsters an advantage versus the PCs" isn't a hazard at all.


----------



## mrswing (Nov 11, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Others have already covered a lot of major changes that can be of great help. I have a some suggestions for a stylistic shift that would make me interested in buying modules again.
> 
> 
> *Don't Tell a story:*




Part of the problem is that the modules AREN'T telling a story. They are presenting threat, detail its location and the combat encounters that will be encountered there. But that's not a story, that's just a collection of challenges. All of which are potentially deadly (so no one encounter is more important than another), and all of which end in a confrontation with the Bad Entity behind the whole nefarious plot.

On the other hand, explicitly telling a 'real' story in an RPG module is a difficult endeavor. Many times, the major NPCs are the real heroes of the story and the party are nothing but bodyguards who traipse along to fight a few threats and bear witness to all the interesting things the NPCs experience. This was the case in Ravenloft 2, the Randal Morn trilogy in 2e, but also in many Paradigm modules for 3e (in one of them, the PCs are literally the bodyguards of a senator who has to make difficult political choices - and I'm not meaning to slam Paradigm, I think they made Arcanis into one of the most interesting game worlds around. But many of their adventures are very disappointing). And the trilogy which started the Iron Kingdoms line also suffered from the same problem. 

Another thing I dislike very much (though YMMV quite a lot) is all these dungeon crawls which have pages of background info which are a) pointless to the current plot b) cannot be discovered by the characters c) tell an exciting, intrigue-heavy tale which is now over and done with and leave the current PCs with nothing more to do but kick down doors and slay whatever monsters are behind them. The whole DCC-line was proud of its lack of NPC-interaction, which I personally find deplorable.

I think many of the modules written for the original West End Star Wars game are good examples, though. They are cinematic, generally put the characters in the driving seat, start with a slam bang opening which is often really exhilarating, and generally offer enough non-combat scenes during the adventure to keep the experiences offered by the module varied and exciting. 
Same thing applies to the James Bond modules, several of which even improved on the plotting of the films (Live and Let Die, Dr. No, View to a Kill...). They read well and played well. 

More recent good work can be found in the last Conan mega-module (Wrath of Asgard???). Many Elric/stormbringer modules are quite good. And for D&D, the UK series for 1e had some pretty good modules, the B/X module was very, very good (as were X4 and X5 for the Expert set). And Aaron Allston's introductory module in the N-series (where you started with 0-lvl characters marooned on an island and came to choose your class through your actions) was also exemplary. 

Now, most of these are IP-driven lines, and the adventures try to approximate the feel of the original works. Perhaps that's one of the key elements - try and reproduce the excitement found in the original source material. And I don't think that source material should be CRPGs (based on D&D's own paradigm, anyway, so the snake is eating its tail), but instead good and/or classic heroic fantasy and sword and sorcery stories, novels and (a much rarer breed, alas) movies. 

Maybe take a look at some structural models used for screenwriting (Hero's Journey may be very appropriate, or Blake Snyder's Save The Cat) and figure out how to use them for RPG module storytelling purposes (with one major caveat - instead of one protagonist who generally changes through and because of the adventure, you now have a group of protagonists you have absolutely no narrative control over). These models will in any case help you think about the overall shape of the adventure, the story reason for the encounters, and give them different weight. 

And oh yes, ditch skill challenges for anything except purely physical activities (like escaping from a collapsing temple during a volcanic eruption). They're a truly wrongheaded design choice, a pain to read and obviously bloody difficult to design as well.


----------



## SoulsFury (Nov 11, 2010)

Wow, I wish I had seen this thread sooner, not sure how I missed it. Skimming over the other responses, I will say my piece.

Better villains for sure. I ran KotS for my group and they found out Kalarel's name right before he got dragged into the rift. He wasn't in the adventure. I, as others did, had to remove several boring encounters and actually removed the entire area that had, IRC, an ooze or cube.

Overland maps. I would like to see overland maps that present possible side encounters. In KotS, there wasn't a map that showed where everything in the adventure was, in relationship to the village. Granted I used it in a homebrew with a different settlement, but I would have liked to see the general area that the writer had in mind. I believe "Into the Dragon's Lair" did this fairly well, but it has been years since I open that book.

I'm tired of orcs, goblins and kobolds and so are my players. New, believable alternate races in adventures would be great. The Freeport series did this well with the underground serpent people.

More functionality. Orcs of Stonefang Pass had a giant stone slab that locked the orcs in, yet the other side of the tunnel going to the citadel didn't have one. On that note, the dwarves were supposed to be locked in for a 100 years before that. How did they lock themselves in, if the gate tower was on the outside? I added more slaps so it was an array of two working slabs on each side of the Glintshield Clan. A little realism would be better. My players ask lots of questions, so explaining how things work in the adventure would be nice, for instance, how did the dwarves eat for 100 years underground? I know I have my own thoughts on dwarven society, but I don't want to have to make to much up on the fly.


----------



## Rune (Nov 13, 2010)

Hooks.  Lots and lots of good hooks, especially outgoing hooks.  Give me lots of ideas to build on and I can deal with losing out on details that might otherwise fill that page-space.  Especially hooks that I can build a campaign on, not just hooks that lead to the next adventure.

Also, give me a new way of looking at old material in each adventure, and it will help spark my imagination.

In short, give me tools with which I can make the adventure mine and set it within my own campaign, or, better yet, reason to adapt my own campaign around the ideas therein, and I would find it useful and inspirational.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Nov 13, 2010)

SoulsFury said:


> My players ask lots of questions, so explaining how things work in the adventure would be nice, for instance, *how did the dwarves eat for 100 years underground?* I know I have my own thoughts on dwarven society, but I don't want to have to make to much up on the fly.



Cannibalism: 100 years ago there were a whole lot more dwarves.


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 13, 2010)

mrswing said:


> Another thing I dislike very much (though YMMV quite a lot) is all these dungeon crawls which have pages of background info which are a) pointless to the current plot b) cannot be discovered by the characters c) tell an exciting, intrigue-heavy tale which is now over and done with and leave the current PCs with nothing more to do but kick down doors and slay whatever monsters are behind them. The whole DCC-line was proud of its lack of NPC-interaction, which I personally find deplorable.



I look at those background stories as guidelines rather than anything cast in stone, and most often either modify the hell out of them or replace them entirely to fit what's already going on in the campaign.  As for the lack of NPC interaction, when compared to the module suggesting or forcing certain NPC interactions I find it easier to add such things in than to take 'em out.


> ... And Aaron Allston's introductory module in the N-series (where you started with 0-lvl characters marooned on an island and came to choose your class through your actions) was also exemplary.



"Treasure Hunt" is certainly a clever departure from the norm, even if not to my tastes.


			
				SoulsFury said:
			
		

> More functionality. Orcs of Stonefang Pass had a giant stone slab that locked the orcs in, yet the other side of the tunnel going to the citadel didn't have one. On that note, the dwarves were supposed to be locked in for a 100 years before that. How did they lock themselves in, if the gate tower was on the outside? I added more slaps so it was an array of two working slabs on each side of the Glintshield Clan. A little realism would be better. My players ask lots of questions, so explaining how things work in the adventure would be nice, for instance, how did the dwarves eat for 100 years underground?



Orcs of Stonefang Pass looks like a module where someone had a good idea and just didn't spend enough time on it.  But it can be used as a good example of something I noted above: backstory as guidelines only.  The idea of an awakening Titan fits perfectly with my game setting thus I'll eventually (I hope) run this in my 1e game; the module will be mostly the same but the backstory will be unrecognizable.

Lanefan


----------

