[Adventure] looking for feedback

[Madkitten]

Hello

A friend and me where reading through some adventures that we had acquired some
years ago (about 10 years or so), and came to the satisfying conclusion that they
stank. Well, we then re-read some new (no one older than 6 months) ones and
realised that they where almost as bad, some where even worse. It should be noted
that these adventures are all Swedish, so I don't have a good reference point for
more international writings on the subject or there ups and downs.

Anyway, we decided that it cannot be that hard to at least make a decent
adventure, and set out to do so, starting with summarising our perceived flaws,
they go something like this:
Linear, almost all of adventures we read where extremely linear in that you would
have a hard time to get the plot working if the players did not follow the
prearranged path of the adventure.
Closed, the party where often expected to be very combat oriented, something that
made the adventure's closed off for say a group of wandering detective monks (in
the name of the rose is a good example for how something like this could be played
out)
Repetitive, many of the adventures forced you to do the same thing over and over
(dungeon-thrashing where common for this, but there where other examples as well).

Looking at this, we decided to work out guidelines for how our adventure would
differ, namely:
Nonlinear: the adventure shall be easy to modify, even modular (if one module of
the adventure is changed, nothing else needs changing).
Reusable: The adventure shall be gm friendly in the regard that the elements in it
should be easily reusable.
User-friendly: The adventure should be easy to understand and to use, and it
should keep the players busy even when the gm walks out with a player and solo's,
or when he/she needs a few minutes to think.




So, why do I post here? Simple, we need input and outsiders that know next to
nothing about our project would, IMHO, offer the best feedback. Below follows a
short summary of the adventure itself and a description on how we will try to
follow our guidelines.





The world: In short, we develop the adventure for a game called Mutant: heirs of
the Apocalypse. Its a post-apocalyptic world where humanity have managed to
workthemselfs back to a technological level equivalent of the 1700's (about). Old
technology is prized possessions and most of it exists in radioactive areas
swarming with horrors called Zones.

The Adventure is roughly divided into 12 parts (the modules I talked about
earlier), however I have only sum mariced the first three below. In short, the
empire of pirit (equivalent to a small German state of the 1700's) have had word
of a powerfull artifact hidden in a zone on there territory. Unfortunately for
them, so have goborg, a close by state that is on the verge of war with pirit, who
have decided to sabotage the expedition and preferably steal the artifact. Each of
these parts will have 3 to 10 sideplots connected to them and about the same
number of locations (mini-settings). I have mentioned the names of some of the
side-plots, however the locations are pretty meaningless without a longer
explanation so I omitted them.

The feast: Two parties celebrating the close departure for the expedition, its
point is to introduce the characters to the other fractions, groups and
individuals that makes up the expedition. The reason to why there is two parties
is simple, one for the nobles and one for the rest. Sort of like a kickoff on a
company.
Side-plots include: Bad omens, rumors, a troublemaker or two, settling a bet,
judging a duel.

The radio: This is the first point that the PC's are actually required to meet, and
there mission is to pick up a radio in a nearby village who's communications to the
outside world have been severed for the last few days (actually only a bridge that
have collapsed, nothing dramatic). For higher status characters there are other
reasons for doing the trip (recruiting, acting as a diplomat, that sort of thing).
Side-plots include: wolf-pack prowling, broken wagon, shotgun wedding.

The robbery: Once the characters return, they learn that during there absence a
robbery have been committed, one that could only have been committed by a member of
the expedition. As the only one heightened above all suspicions, and wishing to
keep the matter internal, the leader of the expedition requests the characters to
look into the matter. This is the first clues that there is a spy onboard.


The way that we try to uphold the guidelines are the following:
Nonlinear: Several different suggestions to how certain "necessary" actions
can/could have happened (we where thinking pushing four different "robbing"
scenarios together with specific and general clues as well as witnesses).
We will put in many different levels on the problems (for example a strategy game
based on the normal rules for the game, to let tactic happy high status characters
test there abilities).
No triggers, in other words all events can theoretically unfold without the player
characters being present.
Problems will be solvable in many ways, not only one (the robbery can for example
be solved by normal search for clues, as well as going into the pirit underworld
or go looking for eye-witnesses).
There will be many inroad's into the adventure, everything from Mentors to the
more classical promise of riches.

Reusable:
Many NPC's, we have about 30-40 done, the goal is 150 (roughly half the
expedition).
Much props.
A lot of sideplots (I think we have somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 as it is,
each roughly half a page).
The adventure should be scalable, in other words if the gm wishes to create a new
expedition but a much smaller one, it should be easy to do (or another robbery, or
whatever).
A lot of maps (the only thing we have had a trouble fixing).

User-friendly: To keep the adventure user-friendly we rely mainly on time-lines,
relation graphs and a logical structure.


So guys, what have we forgotten? and what can be done better?

[MatrixGamer]

Nonlinear: Several different suggestions to how certain "necessary" actions
can/could have happened (we where thinking pushing four different "robbing"
scenarios together with specific and general clues as well as witnesses).
We will put in many different levels on the problems (for example a strategy game
based on the normal rules for the game, to let tactic happy high status characters
test there abilities).
No triggers, in other words all events can theoretically unfold without the player
characters being present.
Problems will be solvable in many ways, not only one (the robbery can for example
be solved by normal search for clues, as well as going into the pirit underworld
or go looking for eye-witnesses).
There will be many inroad's into the adventure, everything from Mentors to the
more classical promise of riches.

D+D games can be made very linear. If the scenario requires that X happen followed by Y it is linear. There are players who like this because they want to passively react to a world put in front of them. When a player wants more they become dissatisfied with "What's in the next room Fritz?" Scenarios. Getting away from this though required a shift in paradigm of GM and players.

You've set up a world where if the players do nothing a story (be it a robbery or whatever) happens without them. You want to try to intice the players to join the fun, but by the basic assumption they are not the center of the story. If they want to be the center of attention I can see them rebelling fast. This is where the world view shift would come into play. For a game to be nonlinear the players have to be free to go off in any direction they want to. If the GM has to make up a game on the spot in front of them (or place the next encounter in front of them no matter which direction they go in) then either the GM is doing all the work or the players are being rail road-ed (possibly without even knowing it). This might still make for a fun competition combat game (a Gamist Agenda). It might be fun for players who want to experience the world  without any expectation of a story emerging (a Simulationist Agenda - though this could be disagreed with). The player who wants to be in the center of the story, and feel the drama happening here and now (a Narrativist Agenda) are going to be unhappy.

It sounds like you want to have modular scenario parts that can be moved between in any order to reach a conclusion to the game. This could work - it just needs to be made very clear to the players and GM that this is what happens in this game. The players may need to know what "parts" exist so they can chose which they want next. This shares GM power with the players (paradigm shift!) which can work well.

The narrativist agenda is what a lot of games on the forge are made to support. They use the rules to encourage what is called "Story Now." Which means whatever goes on in the game is a gripping story as it is being played - rather than looks like a story after the game is done and you've thought about it for a while. The long time forge writers say this agenda is about "Addressing the Premise" of the game - by which they mean grappling with an emotionally charge issue (rather than the dictionary definition of Premise).

I've seen people talk about this in different ways but a common thread is this: The GM describes/frames a scene that puts the players in the position to make a vital moral decision. It does not matter what they decide, the point is that the next scene directly flows from their action. Either way they are going to have trouble. The GM makes a game world (often done with a relationship map) that the players collide with. Characters may die, but if it addresses premise that is not a bad thing. For this to work the GM has to share a lot of their power over the game.

Engle Matrix Games share power with players differently from Narrativist games like Sorcerer and Dogs in the Vinyard. In those games the GM can frame scenes, and thus acts similarly to other RPGs. In EMGs the players make arguments about what happens and the GM/referee's job is to decide what the player has to roll for their argument to happen. At this point the GM has no authorship of the game at all and is only an editor. The players are in charge.

Passing over power puts players in charge which will usually put their people at the center of the action. Games are almost always non linear because players make the game happen as they play rather than have it revealed to them. The narrativist focused games I'm familiar with structure play by having a clear premise the players crash into (which use the people in the relationship map). EMGs provide players with a plot track that shows the type of events that need to happen in a murder mystery, spy game, etc. but which leave it up to the players decide when they want them to happen and what exactly happens.

So... how much power are you willing to give up to achieve the goal of nonlinearness? (BTW This question is what narrativist players mean by premise. You can answer it anyway you like - and the consequences will flow from whatever you do.)

Chris Engle

[Madkitten]

You've set up a world where if the players do nothing a story (be it a robbery or whatever) happens without them. You want to try to intice the players to join the fun, but by the basic assumption they are not the center of the story. If they want to be the center of attention I can see them rebelling fast. This is where the world view shift would come into play. For a game to be nonlinear the players have to be free to go off in any direction they want to. If the GM has to make up a game on the spot in front of them (or place the next encounter in front of them no matter which direction they go in) then either the GM is doing all the work or the players are being rail road-ed (possibly without even knowing it). This might still make for a fun competition combat game (a Gamist Agenda). It might be fun for players who want to experience the world  without any expectation of a story emerging (a Simulationist Agenda - though this could be disagreed with). The player who wants to be in the center of the story, and feel the drama happening here and now (a Narrativist Agenda) are going to be unhappy.

This is a very interesting point you bring up, however, I belive that I have perhaps been unclear or we might not share the same vocabolary. We do not wish to create a non-linear adventure, but an adventure that's easily used in a non-linear fashion.

It sounds like you want to have modular scenario parts that can be moved between in any order to reach a conclusion to the game. This could work - it just needs to be made very clear to the players and GM that this is what happens in this game. The players may need to know what "parts" exist so they can chose which they want next. This shares GM power with the players (paradigm shift!) which can work well.

Sorry about that, no, we do not want a modular scenario in that regard. What we want is a modular scenario in the regard of usability. The individual parts, modules, of the scenario should be easily parsed, or taken, from our adventure to be used in another situation (whatever the gm might wish for). This includes any part, from a story arc to a bunch of NPC's and so on...

So... how much power are you willing to give up to achieve the goal of nonlinearness? (BTW This question is what narrativist players mean by premise. You can answer it anyway you like - and the consequences will flow from whatever you do.)

This, and the discussion befor it, where very stimulating. To be honest I have to think on this. A lot.

I would very much like be able to give you (and myself) the answere a lot, however that leads to some rather large problems. As it stands, I would problably have to say that the power model we are looking for is a slightly constricted EMG, IMHO.

[MatrixGamer]

Tony

I am interested to see what you come up with. An open scenario that worked like you've described would be new and I think cool.

When you get a play test version in shape you might want to enter it into one of the award contests on the Endeavor forum. You'll get a lot of feedback that way.

When it comes to the language issue, The Forge does use terms in ways that are confusing to new people. That is why this forum was set up. I learned the terms by going back to the beginning of the Actual Play forum (2002) and reading the posts. That is when everyone was new and the terms were discussed more approachably.

Good luck!

Chris Engle

[Madkitten]

Yes, thank you, I will try to do that.