Goodman's column in Issue #6

[Greg Ellis]

I've just finished reading Joseph Goodman's "How to Write Adventures that don't Suck" in Crusader issue 6.

I must admit that I expected to hate this article before I had even begun to read it.

I remembered reading a very similar sort of thing in Dungeon Magazine about 15 years ago, and at the time I was simultaneously baffled, disheartened and more than a little bit angry at what the Dungeon editors had to say about the sorts of adventures they did NOT want to see.

Having finished Joe's article, however, I realize it's not nearly as offensive as the Dungeon Mag submission guidelines, and in fact contains quite a lot of good advice.

But I've still got some bones to pick, so here we go...
"The job of a published author is to produce material that the typical Dungeon Master at home could not produce."

No. That's not right.

People who buy modules fall into three general groups - Collectors, Plunderers, and Users.

"Collectors" buy a module because they've already bought all the other modules in the series. Some of them don't even read the modules - they seal them in little plastic bags and file them carefully. These folks don't care even slightly about what's inside your module, or how well it's written, or how innovative it is. They just want it to complete their set. Many of them don't even play the game on a regular basis, or at all.

"Plunderers" never run modules as written. They read as many modules as they can get their hands on, so they can steal an idea from here, a map from there, a new monster from this one, a cool trap from that one, and then assemble their own adventures from the pieces. These guys also don't care much at all about how good your module is - in fact they are probably of the opinion that "all modules suck, my stuff is so much better". As long as you've included a few interesting, original, or even just plain "usable" bits, the plunderers will be happy.

"Users", on the other hand, like to run a module as is. They don't want to burn up time changing the module to make it fit into their campaign. They don't want to adjust encounters to suit the party level, or expand on the dungeon that you've inexplicably chosen to leave unfinished. The important thing for a "user" is that the module "works" - the layout is well structured and easy to follow, the adventure is easy for the DM to wrap his head around, and the scenario doesn't fall apart when the players try something a bit unusual. Sure, the adventure has to be entertaining and fun, but the "user" isn't looking for something that he *can't* produce by himself - he's looking for something that he doesn't the time or energy to produce on his own.

So none of these folks are really looking for something that they "could not produce" by themselves. The Collector doesn't care, because he'll never run the module anyway. The Plunderer only needs a few good bits and pieces to make him happy, because he thinks he's better at writing modules than you are (and maybe he actually is), and the "User" just needs something that's easy to run, limits his prep time and maximizes his play time.
"Don't throw in a rust monster. Instead, make it a rust spider that climbs walls."

Oh no. Please don't.

This is the whole "half-celestial dire lizardman paladin-sorcerer-monk" school of thought that just makes me puke. If you're going to go to the trouble of building a new creature, please, please don't take the head from one creature and put it on the body of another and say "hehe, kewl". Put some thought into it.

BTW, "freak accident in the alchemy lab" is a lame excuse for a new creature. If that's all you can think of, don't explain it at all. It just is. Think about what the existence of your creature means for the people and creatures and plants who live near it. Why hasn't this weird and wonderful thing been encountered before?

Don't take it the wrong way - I'm a big fan of new creatures. I just don't like Franken-building. It's way too comic-book for my taste.
"Make the levels distinctive. Each level of the dungeon should feel distinct from the ones before and after it. They shouldn't blend together."

Yech. This is very video-game. Lava level, water level, ice level. Snore. And I notice you said "before and after" instead of "above and below" which means you're thinking of a linear dungeon, rather than a traditional one that's accessible by many routes.

Yes, it's fun to get the party into new and unusual environments, and some variation of this sort is definitely required. But to group these look and feel zones into levels is very contrived. Why *wouldn't* a given dungeon complex have a relatively consistent feel from level to level? Introducing wildly divergent environments within a single dungeon complex starts to break the illusion, in my opinion. And it's remarkable how frequently a dungeon "breaks through" into some other, far more ancient, system of tunnels, completely by coincidence. Don't do it!
"Every dungeon needs at least one secret door, preferably hidden in a place that the PCs won't think to look."

You're kidding, right? What's the point, boosting page-count? Secret doors need to be in places where at least *some* PCs will think to look. Otherwise, all of your content behind that secret door goes to waste. And if that's happening on a regular basis, you're just wasting effort and trees.
"Don't include too many new monsters. Players get frustrated if everything is unfamiliar."

I strongly disagree with that. The whole game is about exploring unfamiliar territory and encountering weird and wonderful things. As soon as your players start saying "oh, it's a basilisk, so that means it can do A, B and C; we should fight it this way" then you've stopped playing a fantasy RPG and started into something closer to chess or checkers. Unless the characters have already encountered the exact same creature in an earlier chamber, they shouldn't have a clue about what it can do. And if you're handing them that knowledge by giving them a creature name they can look up in a book, they're missing out on a huge part of what makes this such a great game form.

All of the above, is of course just my opinion. I quite liked the majority of the advice given in the column, there were just a few issued that bugged me, as I've laid out above.

Keep it up and I look forward to future installments,

Greg

[gideon_thorne]

Now go post this on the Goodman boards. ^_~`
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Treebore]

Yeah, I agree with you Greg.

Peter is right, go post it on the Goodman boards. Last time I looked it had been post free for about two months. So it could use something that might generate some traffic.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Greg Ellis]

I don't have an account over there.

Besides, it's about an article in Crusader, not a GG product.

Feel free to post a pointer, if you happen to have an account already.

Does Joe ever drop in over here?

[gideon_thorne]

Greg Ellis wrote:
Does Joe ever drop in over here?

Joe comes here sometimes. But its once in a blue moon. ^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Omote]

You know Mr. Ellis, you almost have an article in this very post. You make some detailed, and well thought out points. Of course, everybody is not going to agree with Mr Goodman's article or yours, but it makes for interesting reading for sure. Thx.

...........................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[sieg]

Spot on, Greg. Not that I have read issue 6 yet, as I don't have my copy (or issue 5, come to think of it) but from what you quoted I'm in full agreement with your PoV.
_________________
Always remember, as a first principle of all D&D: playing BtB is not now, never was and never will be old school.- Tim Kask, Dragonsfoot

[Treebore]

Well, I posted a link from over there to here. Unfortunately many probably won't respond here since they would have to sign up to do so.

Hmmm.

I think I'll link that thread back to here just in case they respond over there.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Treebore]

http://www.goodmangames.com/forum.htm

Good. Now if any cool dialogue gets going we can cross post.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[goodmangames]

Greg Ellis wrote:
Having finished Joe's article, however, I realize it's not nearly as offensive as the Dungeon Mag submission guidelines, and in fact contains quite a lot of good advice.

Thanks... I think. I guess it's good not to be "nearly as offensive." In fact, I pride myself in being only moderately offensive.

Greg Ellis wrote:
"The job of a published author is to produce material that the typical Dungeon Master at home could not produce."

No. That's not right.

People who buy modules fall into three general groups - Collectors, Plunderers, and Users.

That's a good way to break down the market, and I can tell you've thought this through. How much of the market do you think is collectors vs. plunderes vs. users? The answer to that question influences who a publisher decides to publish for.

As you've laid it out, I think the "user" component is the vast majority of the population, and they buy modules to save time and "invest in the pros," so to speak. Nobody would pay to see me play basketball... you pay to see great basketball players play basketball... and DM's who buy modules and say, "I could have written this!" generally don't come back for seconds. They pay because they want to see what a really good dungeon designer can come up with. (Random aside: I think this is one of the reasons our tournament modules are so popular. We put about three times as much work into producing them, and enlist a team of our best writers, and rework the encounters dozens of times until they're perfect, and then playtest it relentlessly, and customers appear to be able to tell the difference.)

As for whether it's right or wrong, my perspective as a publisher is that I'm not going to publish anything that Joe Dungeon Master could come up with at home. If it's no better than home brew, what's the point in publishing it?

Another random aside -- check out Monte's latest Line of Sight article. He brings up the same point from a totally different angle.

Greg Ellis wrote:
"Don't throw in a rust monster. Instead, make it a rust spider that climbs walls."

Oh no. Please don't.

This is the whole "half-celestial dire lizardman paladin-sorcerer-monk" school of thought that just makes me puke.

You can interpret it as the "half-celestial dire lizardman paladin-sorcerer-monk" thing, but that's not what I meant. I just meant keep players on their toes with new monsters.

Most DCC customers are experienced D&D players, which makes publishing for them totally different than publishing for, say, Wicked Fantasy Factory customers. You have to work with the assumption that the DCC players are familiar with D&D tropes. Given that assumption, I like it when dungeon writers anticipate the player expectations and work with them creatively.

One familiar example is the pit trap situation... in a long hallway, you know players are going to search for pit traps. So put one right where they expect, but don't make it the real trap. The real trap should come about based on how the players will get around the pit -- if they're low level, they'll probably jump it, so put a second trap in the square where their jump will land. If they're higher level, they may fly over it, so put a trap in the empty air they'll pass through.

That's what I mean. If your players yawn when they see a rust monster, just make it a rust spider and the encounter gains new life. Anticipate their expectations and work with them. (But note that this sort of "expectations trap" works on experienced players, but only frustrates young kids and newer players.)

Greg Ellis wrote:
"Make the levels distinctive. Each level of the dungeon should feel distinct from the ones before and after it. They shouldn't blend together."

Yech. This is very video-game. Lava level, water level, ice level. Snore. And I notice you said "before and after" instead of "above and below" which means you're thinking of a linear dungeon, rather than a traditional one that's accessible by many routes.

I've published 50+ modules... how many of them feature a lava level, a water level, and an ice level...? That's not quite what I meant. In actuality, I wasn't thinking of video games. Most of the time I'm thinking in terms of people who played most of their D&D prior to 1983, since that's most of my audience.

Some players actually enjoy the dramatic variety of lava, water, ice, as you suggested. For this to be done it has to have a strong sense of the fantastic -- some magical involvement -- otherwise it's just kind of weird.

But I probably wouldn't publish something like that. From a publisher's perspective, I want people to play dungeons that they remember and talk about for years to come. The best way to do that is lots of memorable encounters. Memorable encounters that are kind of randomly scattered about just don't flow as well as those that are thematic over the course of levels -- thus distinct levels. The "distinct" element can be as simple as worked stone walls vs. the coal mine on the level above, or the next level of the giant cave where now everything is moist because you're below the water table -- or as dramatic as a part of Castle Whiterock where you finally break through to the duergar stronghold from the caverns above.

Greg Ellis wrote:
"Every dungeon needs at least one secret door, preferably hidden in a place that the PCs won't think to look."

You're kidding, right? What's the point, boosting page-count? Secret doors need to be in places where at least *some* PCs will think to look. Otherwise, all of your content behind that secret door goes to waste. And if that's happening on a regular basis, you're just wasting effort and trees.

Did anyone ever find the last secret door in Gygax's Greyhawk campaign? I don't think so. And people have been talking about that for about thirty years now.

Many of the people who play in our Gen Con tournament buy the module to find out what they missed. It's just fun to have secrets that are found only by the clever and the lucky.

Greg Ellis wrote:
"Don't include too many new monsters. Players get frustrated if everything is unfamiliar."

I strongly disagree with that. The whole game is about exploring unfamiliar territory and encountering weird and wonderful things. As soon as your players start saying "oh, it's a basilisk, so that means it can do A, B and C; we should fight it this way" then you've stopped playing a fantasy RPG and started into something closer to chess or checkers. Unless the characters have already encountered the exact same creature in an earlier chamber, they shouldn't have a clue about what it can do. And if you're handing them that knowledge by giving them a creature name they can look up in a book, they're missing out on a huge part of what makes this such a great game form.

I hope the rust spider situation above makes more sense -- if I'm clear now as to that comment being totally unrelated to templates, I hope you'll see that we're basically saying the same thing with the above. But the few modules I've published that featured a great many new creatures got consistently negative feedback on that aspect. It's good to throw people for a loop, but too much of it makes them frustrated.

I hope that helps make things more clear.

--

Joseph Goodman

Goodman Games

[serleran]

I got to agree and disagree with both sides, since I think the module itself dictates what can, and should, be in there. For example, a Tomb of Horrors style module, clearly designed for experienced gamers (just look at the levels its suggested for, though in d20, that's more of a joke given the rapid advancement...) should have all sorts of nasty encounters, and should involve things the party would never expect, probably in the form of undead, aberrations, weird oozes, and the like, and they could be entirely new (it is called Tomb of Horrors, after all). For me, its about internal consistency, with the module, not the game. Hell, the module can break every rule there is and if its fun, it'll be fun.

But, I'm one of those hackers. I just take what I want from the module... so, I guess it doesn't really matter to me, as long as its got something that can redeem it.

[Treebore]

I can see your side of things too, Joe. Since your in the best position to tell what your customer base is I can't argue with your selling philosophy, all I can say is I am a serious buyer of modules and I agree with Greg's sentiments a good bit more.

To give you my buyer demographics, I have bought all of TLG's modules (D20 and C&C), all but 6 of Necromancer Games Modules, and as of this morning I have bought 27 of your modules (plus the C&C mods you have done) and plan on buying more.

Plus I own all modules Kenzer put out for Kalamar, all modules put out by Paradigm, all modules put out by Green Ronin, all modules put out by Exp. Retreat Press, and all modules put out by WOTC.

Now I'll let you in on a little secret as to why I don't have most or all of yours yet. I like your mods the least. Your mods have been far more "hit or miss" for me. Everyone else has beed "spot on" for me in a far more consistant manner.

So when I look at buying your mods I seriously think "Is this going to be a mod I like, or is it going to be another one of those so-so modules?"

So that is why I have been slow to buy your whole line. I will, eventually. Slowly. Probably. Who knows, I may change my mind and quit buying your stuff and concentrate on supporting Paizo.

As for Greg's categorization I am a combination of "user/plunderer".

If you want even more detailed feedback I can e-mail, or post, a DCC by DCC explanation of what I liked or didn't like and why. Short, not full reviews for each.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[concobar]

What about those of us that buy modules because we are lazy? I have yet to buy a module that contained anything in it that made me go WOW. The purpose of modules IMO is to fill in the spaces in a campaign that I havent got to yet. Thats all.

[Greg Ellis]

concobar wrote:
What about those of us that buy modules because we are lazy? I have yet to buy a module that contained anything in it that made me go WOW. The purpose of modules IMO is to fill in the spaces in a campaign that I havent got to yet. Thats all.

I think that puts you pretty firmly in the "user" category. You want something you don't need to fiddle with, and you'll appreciate it if it's easy to grasp, easy to play, etc. Whether it's beyond your abilities to assemble it yourself or not is sort of irrelevant, would you not agree? The point is not so much that you couldn't build that module, more that you won't, because you're lazy, or because you don't have time.

[Greg Ellis]

Thanks for responding, Joseph. Not everyone in the industry is quite so willing to come out and chat with the fans. Good on you!

goodmangames wrote:
How much of the market do you think is collectors vs. plunderes vs. users? The answer to that question influences who a publisher decides to publish for.

Good question. It's hard to know. Maybe should run a poll or something. I bet this would be valuable info for publishers like yourself?

Most of the folks I know are into the older editions, so I think that pushes them toward the collector and/or plunderer end of things. I'm a user, myself.

Quote:
DM's who buy modules and say, "I could have written this!" generally don't come back for seconds.

Yeah, but then you've got to ask, "well, why didn't you then?"

In fact, I think that whole "I could have written this" frame of mind is strongly associated with the "Plunderer", since a Collector wouldn't care, and a User wouldn't mind. So to please these Plunderer folks, you do need some cool content in there that he can steal, but it doesn't have to be wall-to-wall brilliance or anything.

Quote:
my perspective as a publisher is that I'm not going to publish anything that Joe Dungeon Master could come up with at home. If it's no better than home brew, what's the point in publishing it?

I guess I'm a bit baffled by this bit. Who writes your stuff, if it's not Joe Dungeon Master coming up with it at home? Do you guys work in an office building somewhere, where Joe Dungeonmaster is provided with a cubicle and a coffee lounge?

Quote:
Another random aside -- check out Monte's latest Line of Sight article. He brings up the same point from a totally different angle.

Sorry, I'm not a big fan of Mr. Cook or his work. Nothing personal, of course, I'm sure he's a great guy and all that...

About the rust spider - my critique was more directed at the lameness of combining two stock monsters to make a new one. It seems very "comic book" to me. I'd be much more impressed to see a new creature developed from a myth or legend, or built up from new ideas.

And sorry, I'm not following your references to "templates" at all. I assume you're talking about the version 3+ Hasbro rules? I shut those books for good about 3 years back.

We seem to be very much on the same wavelength about the distinctive levels idea, now that you've clarified yourself a bit. And on the secret doors idea, sure I can see maybe placing one (you mentioned Easter Eggs) in a place where it's unlikely to be found, but making this a common occurence just seems wasteful.

Quote:
the few modules I've published that featured a great many new creatures got consistently negative feedback on that aspect. It's good to throw people for a loop, but too much of it makes them frustrated.

Interesting. I would expect the opposite. New monsters are fun.

Of course, every monster is a new one in my game, even when I've take it straight from the Monster Manual. I don't tell them the names of the things they're fighting, I just describe their appearance and behaviour.

Over time they get to know the capabilities of the creatures they've met before. My current players are still referring to ghouls as "wights", but at least they've got the paralyzation thing right.

Thanks for responding. It is a good article, and it's great to see you contributing to the Crusader.

[Emryys]

Greg Ellis wrote:
Thanks for responding, Joseph. Not everyone in the industry is quite so willing to come out and chat with the fans. Good on you!

I concur... very good to see and insightful
_________________

[3rd Eye]

Greg, if I may offer my own 2 here

Joseph Goodman wrote:
"The job of a published author is to produce material that the typical Dungeon Master at home could not produce."

Greg Ellis wrote:
No. That's not right.

People who buy modules fall into three general groups - Collectors, Plunderers, and Users.

Your breakdown of the types of people who buy modules is a very good one, but it doesn't quite demonstrate the validity your criticism.

Yes, it's true that the "Collectors" don't care what the content is, the "Plunderers" only want some cool bits they can appropriate for their own uses, and the "Users" (who are, I think, probably the majority of buyers) will actually run the adventure as it is.

But what does any of that have to do with the line you quoted from Joseph Goodman's article?

I get the impression that the source of your contention is really just his use of the words "could not" where you think he should have said "would not" presumably because you're offended by the implication that it is beyond your ability to write adventures just as good as the ones that get published but the difference between "could" and "would" is completely irrelevant if you "don't."

In other words, it doesn't matter whether the module-buying GM lacked the ability to write his own adventures, or if he had the ability but just lacked the time. Either way, he couldn't / wouldn't / DIDN'T write his own adventure and either way, the job of a published adventure writer is NOT merely to write an adventure for that GM, but to write something that stands out from the rest of the crap on the shelf and makes that GM buy it.

Incidentally, it would be useful here to quote that line of Joseph's in context:

Joseph Goodman wrote:
Work hard. Dungeons with stirges, darkmantles, chokers, rust monsters, orcs and other no-brainer monsters strike me as lazy. The job of a published author is to produce material that the typical Dungeon Master at home could not produce. Dont submit derivative dungeons.

All he's really saying is that if you want your adventure to be published, you need to work hard on it, don't be lazy, be better than the average Joe Shmoe, and be original. Leaving out the nitpicking over "could not" vs. "would not," surely you don't really disagree with any of that, do you?
By the way, 2 is less than 2 so never let it be said that I overvalued my own opinions.

[Greg Ellis]

3rd Eye wrote:
Greg, if I may offer my own 2 here

...


All he's really saying is that if you want your adventure to be published, you need to work hard on it, don't be lazy, be better than the average Joe Shmoe, and be original. Leaving out the nitpicking over "could not" vs. "would not," surely you don't really disagree with any of that, do you?

Yeah, I guess I just don't share that opinion.

I don't see anything wrong with putting stirges or darkmantles or chokers or orcs in a dungeon, as long as it's artfully done and fun to play. Replacing them with "rust spiders" makes things worse for me, not better.

The "work hard" part goes without saying, of course. No argument there. To do anything well, you need to work hard at it.

I guess the idea that puts me off the most is the suggestion that published modules are somehow "better" than the sort of material that your average "Joe Dungeon Master" could produce. I think that's an elitist attitude with no basis in reality. Having met some of the great adventure writers in the genre, I can assure that they're just regular guys like you and me. There's nothing "special" about them, unless it's their friendliness, kindness and generosity. Which is not to say that they haven't written some awesome adventures; I'm merely suggesting that you can too.

[Treebore]

Greg Ellis wrote:
Yeah, I guess I just don't share that opinion.

I don't see anything wrong with putting stirges or darkmantles or chokers or orcs in a dungeon, as long as it's artfully done and fun to play. Replacing them with "rust spiders" makes things worse for me, not better.

The "work hard" part goes without saying, of course. No argument there. To do anything well, you need to work hard at it.

I guess the idea that puts me off the most is the suggestion that published modules are somehow "better" than the sort of material that your average "Joe Dungeon Master" could produce. I think that's an elitist attitude with no basis in reality. Having met some of the great adventure writers in the genre, I can assure that they're just regular guys like you and me. There's nothing "special" about them, unless it's their friendliness, kindness and generosity. Which is not to say that they haven't written some awesome adventures; I'm merely suggesting that you can too.

Some of my most favorite adventures have "stock" monsters in them used in standard ways, such as Piercers and Stirges.

Plus in my opinion the DCC's are not consistantly "high standard". Meaning not done in such an outstanding way as to be better than what the "DM at home can do".

ITs been very few adventures that have been written so well that I ran it "as is". In fact the only modules I can think of that I run "as is" are Ravenloft (I6), Lost Caverns of Tsojanth, Morrick Mansion, Lost City of Barakus, and The Grey Citadel. Everything else I modify and add to.

Plus, to be fair, a lot of the adventures I do modify and add to seemed to be written that way intentionally. Some I seem to remember even said so somewhere within. Like Keep on the Borderlands, Doom of Listonshire, Tomb of Abysthor, Rappan Athuk, Lance Havermale's Modules, and a lot of the DCC's, to name some.

My main point is that using "common" monster is not a bad thing. Look at Red Hand of Doom. Look at Haunted Highlands. Orcs, Kobolds, Goblins, etc... Used in common ways under common circumstances but still modules that are great fun.

So in my opinon adventure writing has been over analyzed and over regulated.

Then again I have noticed plenty of people who claim they can write adventures better or just as good as what gets published. Only a very few have proven it over at Dragonsfoot and other similiar sites. Even one guy here at these boards comes to mind (miller6).
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[3rd Eye]

Greg Ellis wrote:
I guess the idea that puts me off the most is the suggestion that published modules are somehow "better" than the sort of material that your average "Joe Dungeon Master" could produce. I think that's an elitist attitude with no basis in reality.

So my impression of the source of your contention was correct, yes?
I would agree that at least some of the material being published as modules is no better than some of the stuff people come up with on their own.

However, I've played in some really cruddy "home-made" adventures before. I'm talking about the sort of dreck that's so bad you find yourself lamenting the lost hours of your life that you'll never get back stuff that's far worse than anything I've ever seen printed and published.

Are home-made adventures always worse than commercially-published adventures? No, of course not.

But I think it would be fair to say that the quality of both sources can be mapped on bell curves; and while the two curves certainly overlap, I think the peak of the commercial group's bell is a bit to the right of the home-made group.

Why?

For one thing, the publishers of adventure modules see a lot of crap come across their submissions desks, and (assuming they're any good at what they do) they automatically reject all the garbage. So right there's a level of quality-control that simply doesn't occur outside a commercial enterprise. The mere fact that it got published means it was already better than a bunch of crap that didn't.

But more importantly, commercially-published adventures are (usually, anyway) playtested and based on the results of that playtesting, they go through some editing and refinement processes that simply never even happen to an adventure written by Joe Ordinary, DungeonMaster-at-Home.

So even if as you asserted yourself it is just Joe Ordinary writing that commercially-published adventure anyway, the finished product is almost certainly not the same as what Joe Ordinary started with. It is almost certainly better as a result, too.

No doubt you can name some truly horrible commercially-published adventure modules hell, I can name a few stinkers myself, some of them with my own name in the credits (for Layout & Design only, mind you, and I take no responsibility for the quality of what I was laying out) and you can probably name some truly fantastic home-made adventures that were far better. You may even have written some yourself.

If so, I strongly urge you to SUBMIT THEM.

Publishers aren't idiots, man. They publish the best of what they get. If your stuff is better than what they've got on hand, they'll buy it.

[SavageRobby]

3rd Eye wrote:
However, I've played in some really cruddy "home-made" adventures before. I'm talking about the sort of dreck that's so bad you find yourself lamenting the lost hours of your life that you'll never get back stuff that's far worse than anything I've ever seen printed and published.

Are home-made adventures always worse than commercially-published adventures? No, of course not.

But I think it would be fair to say that the quality of both sources can be mapped on bell curves; and while the two curves certainly overlap, I think the peak of the commercial group's bell is a bit to the right of the home-made group.

I agree. My experience has been that most homegrown adventures where I've been a player just aren't that good. They're usually smaller and less cohesive, and smack of "sameness". And to be honest, most of my homegrowns just aren't that good - one reason why I've switched to running mostly modules, tailored to fit my game.

Now, no doubt there is some dreck out there in the market. Go check out the pamphlet adventures from the early 3x days, or most of the PDF adventures (or heck, most WotC adventures). I think its pretty fair to say that the publishers that are still around publishing modules and thriving put out the better ones, and so far I've been mostly impressed with the DCCs I've bought (some 20+ now). They remind me of the better 1E modules.

If you object to statements like "The job of a published author is to produce material that the typical Dungeon Master at home could not produce" you should make sure to tell your DM that (or if you're the DM, see if your players agree), because that is just outright unusual.

[Treebore]

SavageRobby wrote:
I agree. My experience has been that most homegrown adventures where I've been a player just aren't that good. They're usually smaller and less cohesive, and smack of "sameness". And to be honest, most of my homegrowns just aren't that good - one reason why I've switched to running mostly modules, tailored to fit my game.

Now, no doubt there is some dreck out there in the market. Go check out the pamphlet adventures from the early 3x days, or most of the PDF adventures (or heck, most WotC adventures). I think its pretty fair to say that the publishers that are still around publishing modules and thriving put out the better ones, and so far I've been mostly impressed with the DCCs I've bought (some 20+ now). They remind me of the better 1E modules.

If you object to statements like "The job of a published author is to produce material that the typical Dungeon Master at home could not produce" you should make sure to tell your DM that (or if you're the DM, see if your players agree), because that is just outright unusual.

That "sameness" is exactly why I got so heavily into buying adventure and subscribing to Dungeon. I also realized my adventures had become too "identical".

However I don't consider modules superior in that they write adventures better than I do. They write them differently. Different in thought and approach. Different in what the plot is that drives the adventure. All different than how I would have done it if I had written it myself. In other words, "fresh".

They keep me from getting stuck in a creative rut. Plus they save me the time I would have to spend writing up NPC's, villages, towns, cities, towers, castles, temples, dungeons, etc...

Plus now I have so many adventure modules and "source books" I can literally populate Erde, Faerun, Greyhawk, or any other campaign world/region with completely original locations. Nothing "cookie cut" to quickly flesh out my world. Nothing identical other than human nature.

That is why I am a user/plunderer.

The fact that modules are better than home grown trash is a given. Plus the production value is so high that even someone who has all the software programs to create their own modules at home are still going to have to spend a couple of full work weeks to put it all together and print it.

It still amazes me how many people claim buying modules isn't worth it. Just goes to show we are all human and don't think the same, I guess.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Emryys]

Treebore wrote:
Plus the production value is so high that even someone who has all the software programs to create their own modules at home are still going to have to spend a couple of full work weeks to put it all together and print it.

The added bonus that some of the producers put the maps on their websites for DL is just awesome. I can change, print, use online, and this adds lots of value to their products with little added cost if the maps are done already....

The fan created ones at GMG are fantastic... keep it up!
_________________

[Greg Ellis]

3rd Eye wrote:
But more importantly, commercially-published adventures are (usually, anyway) playtested and based on the results of that playtesting, they go through some editing and refinement processes that simply never even happen to an adventure written by Joe Ordinary, DungeonMaster-at-Home.

So even if as you asserted yourself it is just Joe Ordinary writing that commercially-published adventure anyway, the finished product is almost certainly not the same as what Joe Ordinary started with. It is almost certainly better as a result, too.

That's not a fair comparison though. Preparing an adventure for publication is a much more arduous task that getting it ready for your own group.

In the latter case, there's lots you can just keep in your head, or jot down in point form, to be used (or not, as the case may be) on the fly.

For publication, one would spend a lot more time doing things like getting the wording right, so it's easy for others to understand. You can't compare the two at the "polish" level, since you really don't need polish to run it yourself.

Besides, polish doesn't make a module good, it makes it functional. That pleases the "Users".

Quote:
You may even have written some yourself.

If so, I strongly urge you to SUBMIT THEM.

http://www.trolllord.com/newsite/lejendary/3377.html

[Tadhg]

goodmangames wrote:
One familiar example is the pit trap situation... in a long hallway, you know players are going to search for pit traps. So put one right where they expect, but don't make it the real trap. The real trap should come about based on how the players will get around the pit -- if they're low level, they'll probably jump it, so put a second trap in the square where their jump will land. If they're higher level, they may fly over it, so put a trap in the empty air they'll pass through.

Yep.

Aside w/no spoilers:

Sieg's Shadows of Halfling Hall did a great job with the pit trap in the way you suggest, Joe! My players got hurt!!!
[Edit - Oh and a very interesting thread for sure. Got to read it again!]
_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

[3rd Eye]

3rd Eye wrote:
You may even have written some yourself.

If so, I strongly urge you to SUBMIT THEM.

Greg Ellis wrote:
http://www.trolllord.com/newsite/lejendary/3377.html

Ah. Well now, that's what comes of not really knowing who anybody is.
However in a way, you sort of just proved my point, didn't you? You didn't like the suggestion that "Joe Published" is expected to write better adventures than "Joe Ordinary," and you contended that you could write adventures just as well but you are Joe Published.

[Greg Ellis]

Yeah, I still think there's definitely something to the "could" vs. "would" distinction.

I think most DM's could produce a publishable module, if they set their minds to it. And I wish that more of them would.

It's one of those 10% inspiration, 90% perspiration scenarios. Writing a module is a huge investment of time and effort, generally for very little in the way of monetary gain. Yet it's very rewarding in other ways. And the folks who buy it get a great value (so many hours of work!) for their ten bucks or so.

When I look at the way I use modules in my own games, and the things that frustrate me most about them, it's very rarely the content or the choice of monsters that bothers me. Much more frequently it's sloppy layout, forcing me flip pages searching for things, or text that ought to be boxed that isn't (and vice versa), skimpy details or uninspiring read-aloud text, poor planning, unfathomable NPC motivations, scripted sequences that fall apart as soon as the party does something a just a wee bit off the rails, etc.

I'd be perfectly happy to run a well-written module full of stock monsters and situations I've seen before, so long as it's nicely laid out, easy to grasp, level-appropriate, etc.

Maybe that's just me.

[Dammadon]

For the life of me, I don't know what made me come to this forum and read this thread...

Greg Ellis wrote:
"Plunderers" never run modules as written. They read as many modules as they can get their hands on, so they can steal an idea from here, a map from there, a new monster from this one, a cool trap from that one, and then assemble their own adventures from the pieces.

So... was I your model for the plunderer? After the things I said over at lejendary.com, it would make sense. I'm sure there are a few 'plunderers' that fit the mold as you've cast it to a tee, but there are other things to consider as well. It's not so much a cut and paste thing as you've described it.

From my own standpoint, almost every module has one essential flaw... That being the assumption of any one particular world-view (setting, milieu, etc.). It seems game publishers decided that their adventures should be placed within their own little trademarked worlds. To an extent it makes a modicum of sense because the few modules I've run across that have been 'genericized' to the point that they can be plopped anywhere.... well... they're boring... really boring.... a bring tears to your eyes kind of boring. You're left with no choice but to change things around & add stuff or your players will mutiny. Which brings us back to the 'setting-specific' adventure...

If I don't buy into the world setting, whether it be Oerth, Urt, Airdhe, Mystara, Dark Sun, or Lejendary Earth, then what possible good can I get from buying the module in the first place? To make use of it I have no choice but to change things, place names at the very least. Indeed, I could go the route of the "User", playing as is without regard to whether my player's characters are up to it or not, or whether it fits my campaign or not, but if I'm not buying into the particular world setting it was tailored for, then my games become nothing more than "So, which module do you guys want to go through next?" Where's the fun in that for me? If I'm not using the publisher's setting then, to design a world (or just a campaign setting) so that I don't have to alter the modules, it's going to end up being just as much work as going the other way.

It's a helluva lot more fun for me to use them in the world I've created than to create a world to accommodate someone else's world-view (assuming here that I'm not using the publisher's milieu).

So, I've altered the adventure to fit my campaign needs (like I described at lejendary) and play it out. It's done & over with and the players have moved on. Well I'm sorry, but I don't think I got my money's worth by using a module once and putting it on a shelf... So here's where I really get into cut and paste mode and build my stock folders:
- NPC/NACs and Pre-gens: They get copied and put into a file that I use when I need a certain kind of person for an encounter on the fly. The more stats available the better, even though I may alter those as needed to fit my needs...
- Town & Building Maps: One of the most time consuming things on the planet (for me anyway). They get scanned and I change names, maybe alter the floor plan some, and make my own keys for them so that the town or building again fits my needs...
-Wilderness Maps: Every square inch of my world is NOT detailed and, as long as the scale isn't too large, a majority of the wilderness maps in adventures are easily accomodated which saves me even more time. Again, it's added to or subtracted from and re-keyed to fit my needs.
-Dungeon Maps: Same as above.
-New Creatures, Magic Items, Rules, Equipment, etc.: If these are items that haven't been catalogued in present rule books, then you bet your sweet bippy that they get pulled out and incorporated into the game, in general.

That's what I like about adventure modules. They're infinitely re-usable. Now, granted, if I was to submit material to be published I would be doing EVERYTHING from scratch, but I'm not, so no harm no foul.

Greg Ellis wrote:
......These guys also don't care much at all about how good your module is - in fact they are probably of the opinion that "all modules suck, my stuff is so much better". As long as you've included a few interesting, original, or even just plain "usable" bits, the plunderers will be happy..... .....The Plunderer only needs a few good bits and pieces to make him happy, because he thinks he's better at writing modules than you are (and maybe he actually is).....

To the bold, I don't think that all modules suck. I think that, as is, they either fit don't my needs, or my game world. By buying the modules, not only do I get something I'll likely be able to use in one form or another (sometimes over and over), but I also help to keep the games publishers afloat.
To the italic, I think that's a rude assumption. If I were to take TSR (after Gary) and WOTC as perfect judges, then I'm the crappiest writer there is. I'll have you know that I have a perfect rejection record. 9 out of 9 adventures sent back, completely rejected... and this after they approved the proposals in the first place! The first couple just returned with a "Sorry, but that's not what we thought you were proposing..." ????? The rest always returned with suggestions that amounted to completely re-writing them so that in no way, shape, or form did they resemble what I proposed and sent in in the first place. They wanted me to write their adventure, not mine. If that was the case, from the get go, they should have said so. So like I said, if they are a good judge of who's good and who's not, then I suck.
But that's okay, because my players and I have fun regardless.

Greg Ellis wrote:
And it's remarkable how frequently a dungeon "breaks through" into some other, far more ancient, system of tunnels, completely by coincidence. Don't do it!

I've always been of the opinion that most places, whether it be town, city, port, what have you, get settled because the terrain (water, fertile land, protection, etc) makes it a good place to be and prosper. Empires rise and fall, and the descendants build over the ashes of the old... Why? Because that piece of real estate is prime. It's a good place for a city/port/town/etc. Would seem only natural that if someone is going to the trouble of carving out a nice dank dungeon for himself that he might blunder into the ruins of the old...

Regards,

Jerry

[Greg Ellis]

Hi Jerry,

Fancy meeting you over here.
Actually, I had already written the collector/plunderer/pillager stuff here before I'd read anything about adventure modules over at Lejendary.

Quote:
To make use of it I have no choice but to change things, place names at the very least.

...

It's a helluva lot more fun for me to use them in the world I've created than to create a world to accommodate someone else's world-view (assuming here that I'm not using the publisher's milieu).

For my AD&D group, we created a world as we went along, using Greyhawk as a backdrop and adding in the place names from the modules as we played. It's simply a matter of dropping the modules into various spots that make sense within the existing WoG; no big deal at all.

Davis laughed at me when I told him the Palace of the Silver Princess was only about 20 miles from his town of Botkinberg from "Assault on Blacktooth Ridge".

Quote:
I don't think that all modules suck. I think that, as is, they either fit don't my needs, or my game world. By buying the modules, not only do I get something I'll likely be able to use in one form or another (sometimes over and over), but I also help to keep the games publishers afloat.

Sure, whatever. Obviously I was exaggerating the stereotypes to make them clear. I don't think anyone is purely a plunderer, or purely a user. Yet it's easy to grasp the general characteristics of these folks and what they're most likely to appreciate in a module.

Quote:
If I were to take TSR (after Gary) and WOTC as perfect judges, then I'm the crappiest writer there is. I'll have you know that I have a perfect rejection record.

...

if they are a good judge of who's good and who's not, then I suck.

I'm pretty sure most folks would agree that TSR-post-Gary and WOTC are clearly NOT very good judges of what makes a good module and what does not. Their track record is quite clear, no?

Quote:
only natural that if someone is going to the trouble of carving out a nice dank dungeon for himself that he might blunder into the ruins of the old...

Sure. I was merely pointing out that it's an overdone cliche, specifically within the context of forcing each of the different levels of a dungeon to have a unique look and feel.