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?

ethan_greer wrote: 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.

ethan_greer wrote: 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?

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

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

ethan_greer wrote: 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.

ethan_greer wrote: 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?

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. ]

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.

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.

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

Marco wrote: 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.

Marco wrote: 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.

Marco wrote: 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.)

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.

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.

ethan_greer wrote: 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.

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.

John Kim wrote:
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.

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'.

I think we have more consensus here than disagreement.

1. Sample adventures are one way to show the reader how the game is supposed to be set up.

2. If you don't know how to set the game up to run well...that doesn't bode well for the rest of the game. See Sandy's most recent article about Eigentesting. Shiver.

3. Your game may or may not be served well in describing a sample play set up with an adventure. Depends on the structure of the game. But that doesn't mean that you can't have some sort of appropriate sample.

4. Actual Play accouts can be yet another great way to get across what play is supposed to look like.

We all definitely agree that examples of some sort enhance the ability of text to transfer to the reader a sense of how play is supposed to work. What examples you use will probably vary. But have something.

None of that's really controversial, is it?

If you're not feeling up to the task of putting in the appropriate example, consider farming it out. In any case, if the problem is that you haven't played enough to know yourself what a good example is, the play more before trying. I can't imagine a game that wasn't tested to that level before you could go to writing examples.

Mike

Marco wrote: And some games, Dread it seems, would be helped along with a sample adventure.

Rafael,

Understood. I hear ya. I was going by the RPG.net review where the guy (who liked the game) seemed to be having a hard time putting together what the characters do in a general sense.

Meant nothing specifically bad about Dread. It looks like something I'd like a lot.

And I agree with Mike too--it's one method and may or may not be the finest given an individual game (probably bad for GURPS, implicit part of design for Host-A-Murder)

Mostly what I posted to say was: "Be careful drawing too many conclusions from published adventures (or even how-to-play text, but that's a different matter). The kind of forces at work when those things get made are more complex than I think people assume during analysis--and a sample adventure that was included may have had other priorities than being a concise, elegant, eloquent, global, and complete statement about how-the-game-is-meant-to-be-played or anything like that."

-Marco

Good point, Marco.

In fact, in many cases I truely can't figure out what the designer was trying to say with the sample adventure. I think in most cases they're a "value added" sort of thing. But then the designer thinks that if it's good enough to be a published adventure that they should publish it separately. Or something like that. Leaving the book with just some half-assed idea for an adventure. I don't know how many games I've read through, thinking, "Gee, this sounds neat to play," only to be nearly turned off the game by the sample adventure.

As somebody else said, no adventure is better than a poor one.

Mike