Sample Scenarios

[ethan_greer]

Simple question: Are the sample scenarios that get included in many games actually valuable?

Now, the obvious quick and easy answer is, "yes, of course." Mainly because a sample scenario is typically a peek into the designer's mind as to what the game is really all about-- regardless of what the game text says the game is about.  The sample scenario should act as a vehicle to show off the game's strong points, and allows the game's purchaser to dive right into actual play with a minimum of fuss.

That's the theory, anyway.  But what about when a game's included scenario sucks?  I could see a bad sample scenario providing a quick turn-off to potential purchasers and players.  I could also see a solid game getting hamstrung by a designer who doesn't present scenarios very well.  I could further see aspects of a game being overlooked because the sample scenario causes the game to appear artificially limited.

What if, instead of including a sample scenario, the game text includes guidelines for the sorts of topics and events that are well-handled and supported by the game mechanics?  Is that enough?  Does that provide a sufficient substitute for the absent scenario, and hook the reader as easily into actually play of the game?

Maybe.

So, here's the real question: I've come to the conclusion that I definitely don't want to write a sample scenario for Thugs and Thieves.  Do you, dear reader, feel that I'd be making a mistake in not including one in the published product?

[Bill Cook]

But what about when a game's included scenario sucks? I could see a bad sample scenario providing a quick turn-off to potential purchasers and players. I could also see a solid game getting hamstrung by a designer who doesn't present scenarios very well. I could further see aspects of a game being overlooked because the sample scenario causes the game to appear artificially limited.

To me, there are a few things that precipitate assessing the value of a system based on the strength of a sample scenario: buzz, good cover art, homogenous media and layout, accessible and interesting presentation (i.e. consistent and engaging tone, examples, diagrams) and innovative concept.  So worst case, you've got the first right but the sample is rotten, you're still aces IMO.  Point being to get the first right.

If you're not up for it but you still want it, pitch the system concept to a brilliant plotter, and have him write it.  As to coverage, start with a bullet list, and you can't go too far wrong.

What if, instead of including a sample scenario, the game text includes guidelines for the sorts of topics and events that are well-handled and supported by the game mechanics? Is that enough? Does that provide a sufficient substitute for the absent scenario, and hook the reader as easily into actually play of the game?

That can work.  If the player's more experienced, he'll quickly internalize your system and use it to run with his own ideas, anyway.  I see a sample scenario as providing a starting point for players new to RPG's.

Another thing to consider is, are you just feeling tired after having put so much energy into perfecting your game and can't face the additional work right now?  If that's true AND you still want the sample, take a well-deserved break, and come back to it.

[Marco]

I've written some scenarios. While I didn't include one in the game's main book they were offered right along side for download so maybe ... maybe that counts.

Here are my thoughts about it:

1. They were not "indicative of how the game was supposed to be played."
--This is because
a) When I 'transcribed' a game I ran, all kinds of stuff (like how to motivate individual players YOU are not likely to game with) went out the window and I had to take a concept and figure out how to adapt it to a "generic group." This, I did not do so well.

b) When I wrote a module specifically to *be* a module, I wrote what I thought would be the most popular adventure or the easiest for someone to get a handle on, not what "showed off the game system" nor what "I was most interested in doing." Essentially the fantasy module was "here's a dungeon crawl ... that's what'd it'd kinda look like ..."

c) Several of the modules I did were "gimicky" and I did them because I thought "hell, this *would* interest me because it's *different*." I didn't really convey that in the notes so how would anyone know?

2. I find that a module in the book is like a bunch of pages I'll wish weren't there after I'm done with it. That's my opinion--but there it is. Also: because of space constraints in the book, it might be hard to get real genius in there.

3. It was quite a learning process. My first attempts were completely aborted. I had no clear idea how to convey situation to people (save for a dungeon crawl). My next attempts followed a 3-act structure (or so). I setteled on this as a compromize between clarity and completness. I imagined people reviewing the module and saying "this part was just above the absolute-zero-of-suck--but THEN there was no CLUE where to go with it."

So I wanted to be complete. This comes off as rail-roady. Someone wrote some excellent guidelines on a better way to construct and present this stuff and the articles are on our editorials site. Basically, a good module is, IMO, hard to write.

My observation is that some GM-guidelines are probably a better way to convey "what the game is about" (above the tone and style and examples in the game itself--which should. IMO, be religiously on message).

-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

I agree with Marco in full. Writing introductory or "example" scenarios in a rulebook is like trying to copulate with fog. Especially those that try to incorporate instances of player-character decision.

In my experience, one ends up modelling all sorts of behavior and priorities that don't actually occur in play, and missing out entirely on describing the interactions and choices that did define play.

I really dislike the written version of the Awful House scenario in Sorcerer, even though it plays like a whip when I actually run it. And that's why my scenarios in The Sorcerer's Soul are examples of back-story only, and not at all about actually running/playing the stuff.

I commend Jeff Diamond, especially, in Orbit, for presenting examples of play that really spoke to "how people need to talk to another" during the dice rolling. But this is so rare.

Best,
Ron

[John Kim]

Simple question: Are the sample scenarios that get included in many games actually valuable?
...
But what about when a game's included scenario sucks?  I could see a bad sample scenario providing a quick turn-off to potential purchasers and players.  I could also see a solid game getting hamstrung by a designer who doesn't present scenarios very well.  

This implies a divide between game design and actual play which I don't think really exists.  If you can't come up with some cool scenarios, then you weren't testing your system with cool scenarios -- so you don't know how well your system works under the actual conditions you would hope for.  Personally, I find that the sample scenario is a good indicator of the system -- and if they don't include one, that rates worse in my mind than having a mediocre one.  

What if, instead of including a sample scenario, the game text includes guidelines for the sorts of topics and events that are well-handled and supported by the game mechanics?  Is that enough?  Does that provide a sufficient substitute for the absent scenario, and hook the reader as easily into actually play of the game?  

In short, no, not in my opinion.

It is for a game like Lord of the Rings or Theatrix (say) to spout about the great drama their system supports.  However, the proof is in the pudding.  If you can't come up with a semi-decent scenario, then it causes me to question what you were designing for.  For example, I was quite unimpressed with Theatrix's sample scenario, but I if you have no scenario (like LOTR), then I assume you can't even do that well.  

On the other hand, I don't speak for the gaming population in general.  It could be that people will react better to your game if they don't see the sort of scenario you would design for it.  I consider this foolish in terms of consumer behavior, but it is probably widespread.

[Editted to add:  Cross-posted with several responders.  In short, I disagree.  While a scenario on paper doesn't look as good as actual play, I find as a consumer that it is still a good measure.]

[Marco]

John,

Your take on that is very interesting. Do you have scenario write-ups (not actual play write ups) on the web somewhere? I'd be interested to see them.

It's my opinion that actual play and design *does* have a very firm dividing line: the people you play with.

Rules are the generic case--the designer expects everyone to play by the same rules. Actual play is the specific case. The designer expects everyone to cater to their group.

I think that's a pretty firm dividng line--and one I ran into several times.

Now, we do have some scenarios that I like (parts of them, anyway)--but as Ron pointed out, questions of player empowerment (decision "forks") and motivations (often *basic* in modules) and even a sense of who the PC's are (minus pre-assigned characters) becomes problematic (unless the game is so specific that you "know" who the characters are--but is that ever *really* true? I don't think so.)

The resolution systems (algorithims) is, I think, often different from the use-case (problems to be solved).

-Marco
[ That said, a brilliant module is, like any other brilliant piece of a document, a good thing. And some games, Dread it seems, would be helped along with a sample adventure. But as I said, I think the medium is different. ]

[Valamir]

I find myself agreeing with John, with the added clarification that what I wish to see would qualify more as an elaborated adventure hook than a scenario.  The typical "module design" doesn't really interest me.  Whether the individual sections describe the rooms of a dungeon or the scenes of a "story", such scenarios can not help but be railroady at worst, illusionary at best.  

Far better than a "scenario" of this type is true scenario of the "here's the situation" variety.  Set up the elements of the scenario like a wobbly Jenga tower where the next block taken is likely to send the whole thing crashing down.  Then set the players loose, sooner or later they'll pull a block somewhere and you're off to the races.

IMO a good scenario is strong on situation, light on plot.  My rule of thumb...if it reads like a choose your own adventure novel...chuck it.

...Unless of course that is precisely the style you're intentionally going for.

[failrate]

On what is, I guess, a side note...  while full modules included in games usually don't really knock my socks off, I do like it when people include fictional scenarios in there RPG books periodically as examples to clarify the rules.  Like, if a designer writes down a whole bunch of combat rules, it is useful to have a short excerpt of gameplay describing the rules in action.  These can often be enough to both explain rules that might or might not be ambiiguous as well as providing an excellent indicator of tone.  I've never really liked modules, as I find that the original direction of the writer gets thrown out pretty early once the group gets their hands on it.  They basically just run off and do whatever the heck they want.  That said, ,though, a brief narrative of play describing the game mechanics in action is always helpful for me.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Writing introductory or "example" scenarios in a rulebook is like trying to copulate with fog.

Touching a cloud is like feeling up an angel.

For the most part, I had always skipped the sample scenerio. Partially because reading the scenerio is meant for the GM, and I rarely GM or, when I am the GM It generally isn't the direction I wish to go.

That and a sample scenerio is generally so fluffy and throw away it seems so beside the point to try playing it.

[John Kim]

It's my opinion that actual play and design *does* have a very firm dividing line: the people you play with.

Rules are the generic case--the designer expects everyone to play by the same rules. Actual play is the specific case. The designer expects everyone to cater to their group.

I think that's a pretty firm dividng line--and one I ran into several times.  

But it is purely arbitrary what is covered by the rules and what is a part of actual play.  For example, some games provide a world background as rules -- some do not.  Some games provide a set of distinctive character types (such as Feng Shui's archetypes) while other games do not (like Hero or Over the Edge).  Some games, like Puppetland, have specific rules on what may be said at the gaming table.  Some games, like Time Lord, include as rules who the characters are.  

There is no necessary line between what is provided by the game designer, and what is created by the game players.  All designers leave some things up to the players -- but what those things are varies depending on the game.  As an extreme example, compare what are the rules for the Hero System vs what are the rules for Puppetland.  

The game is there to show you how to play.  We could roughly split this up into show-by-explanation and show-by-example.  To show how to run a real adventure, you can put in an essay on how to GM (like Hero 5th, say) -- but you can alternately put in an adventure (like Over the Edge).  

Your take on that is very interesting. Do you have scenario write-ups (not actual play write ups) on the web somewhere? I'd be interested to see them.  

Not in a great form, but I'll see about rounding out my notes on "Extra Credit".  This is a scenario which I ran at a recent convention, and most of my notes are online.  Ping me in a week or so, and I'll put up whatever I have at that time.  

Just to note, I feel that actual play write-ups are pretty good as well.  I certainly found the sections of actual play in Over the Edge to be among the more enlightening parts of the book, for example.  What I really look for in a game book is some sense of what it is designed for.  While something playable out-of-the-box is nice, the key is showing by example rather than the often abstract talk of GM-advice essays.  

Now, we do have some scenarios that I like (parts of them, anyway)--but as Ron pointed out, questions of player empowerment (decision "forks") and motivations (often *basic* in modules) and even a sense of who the PC's are (minus pre-assigned characters) becomes problematic (unless the game is so specific that you "know" who the characters are--but is that ever *really* true? I don't think so.)  

Agreed, but isn't that pretty similar to any other aspect of the game?  Maybe because of their personalities, my group of players isn't happy with the experience rules provided with a game.  Thus, we change them.  Ultimately, everything depends on the group, and nothing you write in your game is guaranteed to work for any given set of players.

[Mark Johnson]

Ethan,

I think most of the resistance to the idea of sample scenarios is the type of gamer who resides at the Forge simply doesn't like scenarios for any reason.  Outside of D20, the beast that was the "adventure module" is pretty much dead.  Even inside D20, the future of adventure module as a separate product is not promising.

Rather than a single scenario, perhaps you might be better of with a list of strong startup scenarios (if they are localized enough they could even be used by players for Sorcerer style kickers and bangs)

If you do go for a single introductory scenario, I would suggest provide something with a lot of "renewable resources" that can be reused in other contexts:

- a sample starting base town (which is effective in many genres -- fantasy, superhero, cyberpunk, modern-adventure, horror)

- "Typical" PCs with a bit more color than a template

- Important locations if you are doing setting-heavy sim

- Examples of Unique "Monsters"/"Mutants"/"Supervillain" depending on genre and game that could be reused in future with little modification.

- Combat maps of generic locations for tactical play.

- small pieces of evocative artwork (which relate to the scenario, but also conveys the flavor of the game as a whole)

In this way, the scenario is more than a "scenario" it is also a toolbox with setting and resources that can be reused in many ways.  This is especially useful if your game has a sketchy setting to begin with.  Give your players something concrete to play with.

[Ian Charvill]

I think one of the things that really helps games is the length of time and amount of effort needed between picking up the book and running a session.  Pre-written adventures help you to do that.  They give groups the opportunity to test drive the system without having to sink a ton of hours into it.

I think a hobby that requires someone to spend hours and hours of prep before they can actually engage in the hobby iself is pretty much guarenteed to be a niche hobby.

Now, the ideal form, I think, would take the form of a chapter on 'How to Write and Adventue' followed by a worked example - the adventure itself - followed by detailed playtest notes of 'What Happened When We Played This Adventure'.

But then I'm probably labouring under the misapprehension that if game designers really went out of their way to make games easy to play then more people would play them.

[Tony Irwin]

Simple question: Are the sample scenarios that get included in many games actually valuable?

Now, the obvious quick and easy answer is, "yes, of course." Mainly because a sample scenario is typically a peek into the designer's mind as to what the game is really all about-- regardless of what the game text says the game is about.  The sample scenario should act as a vehicle to show off the game's strong points, and allows the game's purchaser to dive right into actual play with a minimum of fuss.

That's the theory, anyway.  But what about when a game's included scenario sucks?  I could see a bad sample scenario providing a quick turn-off to potential purchasers and players.  I could also see a solid game getting hamstrung by a designer who doesn't present scenarios very well.  I could further see aspects of a game being overlooked because the sample scenario causes the game to appear artificially limited.

Hey Ethan, I think all those issues could apply to many other aspects of RPGs as well. eg Why include art if it might turn-off or mislead your audience? What if your small art budget ends up screwing over your game? Why include a pre-made setting if most people are going to make their own anyway? What if stupid quibbles about a generic setting you threw in, distract people from the quality of your system?

For good or ill these things are part and parcel of RPGs just now, if you won't include them then people seem to consider them missing, and will wonder why. For evidence of how your audience can get upset over what you and I would consider periphery issues, just read some RPG reviews on other internet sites.

For myself if you don't include a scenario, then I'll have to be trotting over to your web-site for accounts of what people are actually doing with your game. I don't neccessarily want your scenario so that I can play it as written, but I do need it to compare and contrast with my own ideas before I'm confident enough to run them. A sample scenario is assurance for me that your game can be, and has been, successfully played. I don't know if that's a common feeling among GMs.

Besides, presumably you'd have a section on how to run the game, and how to prepare scenarios for it. A sample scenario (with a couple of optional pre-gen characters) seems to me like a vital aid for this, its your "Here's one I prepared earlier" after instructing us how to hook players into our game.

Tony

[ethan_greer]

Hmmm.  I'm seeing a few categories of response here.

1. Include the sample scenario.

2. Include the sample scenario, but do it in this particular way.

3. You don't need a sample scenario, but instead you should have this other thing that serves a similar purpose.

At this point I'm thinkng I'll just bite the bullet and do what I originally planned: Write up guidelines on how to create a scenario for the game, and illustrate those guidelines with sample prep notes which may be compiled to create a sample scenario.

Thanks for all the responses; they've been very helpful.  And if anyone else has more to say, I'm listening.

[Marco]

But it is purely arbitrary what is covered by the rules and what is a part of actual play.  For example, some games provide a world background as rules -- some do not.  Some games provide a set of distinctive character types (such as Feng Shui's archetypes) while other games do not (like Hero or Over the Edge).  Some games, like Puppetland, have specific rules on what may be said at the gaming table.  Some games, like Time Lord, include as rules who the characters are.  

There is no necessary line between what is provided by the game designer, and what is created by the game players.

That's very true--especially at the outer-edge of Host-A-Murder-Here-Are-Your-Five-Characters (and a recipie for dinner) games. I think that for traditional games, however, the zone of specificity is not that broad.

Even in traditional games where the PC's are semi-specific the action expected in play is rarely that concrete (IME).

So yeah--in some games the game *is* the scenario (Host a Murder). In others (GURPS) there's a far divide (could you include a "sample adventure" that touched on ALL of GURPS? it'd be interesting ...). But I think the mainstream is within a given band where the action and characters will be determined by the group and general background and resolution is determined by system.

If the game, in question, is in that zone, then I'm not sure the sample scenario will be *that* enlightening--but, as you said (and as I said) a good one is always welcome).

NOTE: when we release a world book, we (try) to give a sample scenario with it (C-13 had Sky Pirates). I think this is in keeping with what you suggest--showing people the kind of action one might expect in that world. So, yeah, I kinda agree there.

But still, turning the stuff we did with specific people into generic adventures is a transform that leeches some of the actual-play goodness from the book (IME).

You get an adventure for characters (police in a magical new york) that might not suit a given group--and then do they say "hey, this game isn't for us?" I mean, the world book isn't that prescriptive--but the more generic an adventure gets, IME, the weaker it becomes.

-Marco