Post/Author/DateTime	Post
NiTessine 04-08-08, 07:29 PM	An interesting question was raise in another thread, and Shawn Merwin suggested a new one be started for it. The question goes... Do LG authors in general get much feedback or criticism of their modules from the playerbase at large? I've gotten zip, and I know Simpi often bemoans its lack as well, even for his Cores and metaregionals. It's a good tool, constructive criticism. It tells the author when he's screwed up and allows him to improve as a writer. There are a couple who actually got worse as time went on, which suggests to me that the amounts are limited. I've only written one module for LG, NAE7-04 Unyielding. I received good, constructive advice from Pieter Sleijpen, Sampo Haarlaa and the playtesters that helped make the module better, but nothing after that except what I've managed to extract from players at tables I've run. Indeed, if one looks at the play history, they seem to be the only tables that have been run. But I digress. It's probably late for LG at this point, but I think here's something that the LFR team might take a good, long look at. So, authors in the wider world, do you get any constructive criticism after your babies are released upon the world at large? Players and judges, do you give any?
JohnduBois 04-08-08, 08:57 PM	When I play adventures, I regularly talk to the authors that I know, whether it be by e-mail or in person, about my feelings regarding the adventures. With regard to my own mods, I get frequent feedback from players, but that's in part because I make sure I'm well-known to the player base. The feedback isn't always *constructive*, but it's there. I also get verbal feedback regarding every other mod in the region, whether I want it or not. ;)
JamesMaissen 04-08-08, 09:53 PM	Do LG authors in general get much feedback or criticism of their modules from the playerbase at large? I've gotten zip, and I know Simpi often bemoans its lack as well, even for his Cores and metaregionals. Unless you hunt the feedback down yourself, you are unlikely to receive much except by word of mouth... there just isn't an established method for it. And that's a shame. On a similar note.. how many modules do you know 'official' results for? I've been surprised going into module sequels to find very differing results being taken as the 'official' result. There's very little propagation of them imho because of concern for spoilers. I had hoped that LG would adopt a system to handle this. Say a file that one could download with module errata and official results of premieres, etc.. Basically a password protected file that upon playing the module the judge could give you the password with which you could use to open the file. For example, you play last year's module XXX7-02 and when the ARs are being handed out the judge tells everyone the password for XXX7-02 is 'xyzzy'. You then download the file and open it with 'xyzzy' and find out that at the premiere of the module most tables had result A occur (even with breakdowns or a story, etc) and that's taken as the official result. The file could also detail FAQs concerning things from the AR (i.e. the price of 'sword of ultimate death' is 50,000gp not 50gp, favor B listed does not mean you get a 'get out of jail free card', etc). You could even include errata for the module there if that would lower the threshold for getting errata into modules (rather than letting them continue error laden unaddressed). -James
smerwin29 04-08-08, 10:46 PM	The answer I am going to give is not the "politically correct" answer, but it is my honest feeling and experience. I would estimate that a vast majority of the feedback I receive about adventures, whether ones I write myself or the work of other writers, is really not helpful. That does not mean I do not care what other people think, because I do. That does not mean I do not want to become a better adventure writer, because I do. That does not mean I think I have nothing more to learn, because I know I have much still to learn. But if I am completely honest, I have to admit that most feedback--whether praise, constructive criticism, scathing commentary, or everything in between--fails to prove instructive. My view may be tainted by the fact that I spent a great deal of time and study as a student of creative writing, and then more time as a teacher. The methods and modes of teaching a "creative art" like writing have led me to believe that such feedback usually says more about the person giving the feedback than it says about the work itself: preferences, beliefs, and personality. I feel with providing feedback on an adventure, you are adding the additional intricacies of the fact that the adventure is presented to the players by a DM who can completely change the dynamic of the adventure. You also have the variables of player styles, table makeup, play environment, etc. Does that mean no feedback can be helpful? Of course not. But it would take a monumental effort to find the helpful nuggets among the mountain of irrelevant and sometimes patently unhelpful mountain of granite. I could go on, but I will let others chime in with their thoughts before I bring up any other points. Regards, Shawn
_metz_ 04-08-08, 11:10 PM	When I play adventures, I regularly talk to the authors that I know, whether it be by e-mail or in person, about my feelings regarding the adventures. With regard to my own mods, I get frequent feedback from players, but that's in part because I make sure I'm well-known to the player base. The feedback isn't always *constructive*, but it's there. I also get verbal feedback regarding every other mod in the region, whether I want it or not. ;) Since spending more time on Openrpg, and also on these forums, I have been able to talk to more authors. Additionally, I talk to the regional authors here in Australia a fair bit at cons etc when they are often running their games. The biggest issue I see with modules is when they have good concepts that are inadequately play tested or edited. Online play testing for example is quite worrisome, as an online game is composed by die hard players with usually extremely competent players in a balanced party. The real test of a module is the random muster, and many Core games seem to NOT take this into account at all. This is the most important thing imparted upon writers in my area. As such some parties ace some fights, others do not ace them. My view is that the players often expect the following (or should): 1. Core Specials are iconic and deadly, and are when you pull out the favours and the big heroics. The post about ‘Whispers’ is a clear example of where the urgency and danger of the core special was not parted onto the player, and as such I do not view it as the authors fault, having since read the module. 2. Final plot arc stories are usually dangerous and require sacrifice/canny play. lets talk about Dominion: This mod was fun at APL 14-16 which was odd, considering bright sands PCs could barely even hope to be level 10 without running out of TUs when it was released. Additionally, at the APL where most bright sands PCs would be when completing the arc (APL 6) was excessively dangerous and lethal at that APL. Mechanically it had massive flaws. Story wise, the Karistyne/Geven/Rary thing was a bit frustrating in its final execution. I know I wasn't allowed by my Gm to do the Rary thing... I also have a slight annoyance that the 'dust' series didn't amount to much in the way of interesting stuff, as it had built up so well, and the final was... anticlimactic. 3. Decisions often actually matter in the final plot arcs, as do previous favours. There is not enough taking into account other favours, as was described with Something of Value, Tensor should have been taken into the equation, some modules take into account previous things very well, but others do not at all. Other modules should be balanced and self contained, and should take into account the random con muster. What the experienced LG players with level 15 PCs often forget is that occasionally people don't turn up to cons/games *just* to play with the same people they play with at home/online every week, for many that is the attraction of LG. Moreover, not every one can handle the 'killer' APL of APL 10, as people forget in APL 10+ mods that some folk might be playing with their first PC in that range and not know how to deal with EL 13 encounters at all. I dunno, I feel that the Greyhawk ruins arc was too far a knee jerk in the opposite direction to lower level play, but I do sympathise with the motives. I have had better role-playing in those mods recently than in the APL 16 modules. My typing is often full of grammatical errors, but that is because I am in a rush. In final modules, typos and bad grammar really bug me. CGR 8-03 for example had every item of note "dominating" every room and every door or stairwell "piercing" the wall. EVERY bit of box text was identical and used overly complicated metaphors that made the whole thing sound silly, we were all laughing by the end of it, and casting magic circle against evil to prevent this domination. Editing, often just being READ through by someone else makes a big difference.
dkay807 04-08-08, 11:17 PM	I have only become an LG author recently, but have put out about 7-8 rounds of modules since December (one on the way). I actually find it very difficult to receive feedback, and even more difficult to receive honest feedback and I think that's something that can easily be improved and would help increase the quality of writing amongst authors that continue to write modules. I typically receive feedback from my playtesters, who simply say "this isn't fair" or "this combat is too hard" or "we need more of a hook to do XYZ." But once the module premieres, only one or two people at tables I run say anything constructive apart from "that was fun" and I don't hear anything from people that play at other tables except on rare occasions (I have received a few emails and comments here and there which have been nice/helpful - but I'd love more). In all honesty, I'd love to catch soundbytes from people who play the modules I write that might help me improve as an author. It feels great to hear "I loved the mod!" but it doesn't help me improve. On the other hand, receiving positive feedback is encouraging and inspires me (and likely other authors) to keep on writing. I think both are important in moderation. LG is coming to an end, but a discussion around coming up with some form of delivering feedback to module authors would be an interesting discussion. I would imagine that everyone would benefit from it - and upcoming campaigns (such as LFR) could certainly take away some of the lessons learned.
dkay807 04-08-08, 11:23 PM	When I play adventures, I regularly talk to the authors that I know, whether it be by e-mail or in person, about my feelings regarding the adventures. With regard to my own mods, I get frequent feedback from players, but that's in part because I make sure I'm well-known to the player base. The feedback isn't always *constructive*, but it's there. I also get verbal feedback regarding every other mod in the region, whether I want it or not. ;) Haha, every year I post my own personal review of every regional that came out that year and outline what I think worked and what I think didn't. It doesn't get much response from the players, but our POC certainly reacts to it - we seem to have opposite views of which modules we think work and which don't. John, I think it's great that you seek out feedback on modules that premiere at your region. It's really important to have a pulse about modules from the players in your region.
boolean 04-09-08, 01:31 AM	I also have a slight annoyance that the 'dust' series didn't amount to much in the way of interesting stuff, as it had built up so well, and the final was... anticlimactic. Reading "Divided We Stand", my biggest reaction was: "I wish I'd played the other half of the series." I hadn't, because the other half of the series was a number of Pale mods.
garyjohnson 04-09-08, 06:05 AM	Do LG authors in general get much feedback or criticism of their modules from the playerbase at large? At large? Not really - I've occasionally gotten emails from strangers about a scenario, but usually I get feedback from people I know and game with (and thus overlap greatly with my playtesters) people who respond to an email request from me on the regional list for feedback on my last scenario I've also gotten very little negative feedback - I suspect that people who dislike a scenario don't bother talking about it afterwards unless they really, really dislike it. As a general principle, I generally get much more feedback from players than from DMs who have read the written scenario - which means much of the feedback is more about how the DM ran the scenario than about what I wrote. After all, a player only sees one APL of what you wrote. Cheers, Gary Johnson
JohnduBois 04-09-08, 08:07 AM	Haha, every year I post my own personal review of every regional that came out that year and outline what I think worked and what I think didn't. It doesn't get much response from the players, but our POC certainly reacts to it - we seem to have opposite views of which modules we think work and which don't. John, I think it's great that you seek out feedback on modules that premiere at your region. It's really important to have a pulse about modules from the players in your region. Well, it's helped recently that I've had a couple slots off or finished early at local cons, and am *really* good at eavesdropping at the local eateries... Good Listen checks are how you get the truly accurate feedback...:evillaugh
Timlagor 04-09-08, 08:11 AM	Putting the author's e-mail address on the ARs would almost certainly generate more feedback. Not putting it in the module virtually guarantees you won't get any from strangers.
Reylance 04-09-08, 03:07 PM	The main problem is that most feedback is not helpful. It's rarely useful unless it comes from someone who has played and read the module. Often, when things go wrong, it's a mistake of the judge, not a problem with the module itself. I'd like to see modules be more available to players, such as with free downloading after they're played, but I doubt that will happen.
iskurthi 04-09-08, 03:28 PM	The main problem is that most feedback is not helpful. It's rarely useful unless it comes from someone who has played and read the module. Often, when things go wrong, it's a mistake of the judge, not a problem with the module itself. I'd like to see modules be more available to players, such as with free downloading after they're played, but I doubt that will happen. Since all modules are now essentially "cores" with the rights going to WotC instead of reverting to the authors, maybe the modules (sans AR of course) could be made available after they expire. This exposes all the design elements for everyone to see and critique. Personally (in LG) I always try to run any mod I've played at least once simply because I like to see what was really going on. :D
Greyson 04-09-08, 03:48 PM	I would estimate that a vast majority of the feedback I receive about adventures, whether ones I write myself or the work of other writers, is really not helpful... feedback usually says more about the person giving the feedback than it says about the work itself: preferences, beliefs, and personality. I share your thoughts whole-heartedly, Shawn. "Feedback" and "constructive criticism" are just subjective opinions. People are going to like or dislike LG adventures according to their own feelings (with ample influence from GM interpretation and context). Taking time to consider all of the feedback from myriad people with their personal perceptions, agendas and motives just creates endless avenues of debate and counterpoint between people that are not gonna change their view of things.
amysrevenge 04-09-08, 07:00 PM	I've found in the past that the order of usefulness of criticism is like this: player < judge < other writer < editor The most useful feedback is from experienced editors and other writers. The least useful feedback is from players. The reason, I think, is that while players always know when they are happy or unhappy, they might not be able to accurately say why they are happy/unhappy. Experienced editors and writers can often see right to the why of things working or not working. (When I say "editor" I mean anyone who has edited modules, not necessarily the person who is editing the module in question.) Big Mike
solbergb 04-09-08, 07:50 PM	When I have an unusually bad experience, my tendency is to first read the module. Most of the time it is the GM. When it is the author, I've actually pro-actively contacted them and talked about what they were trying to do. I ended up running some of the worst-reputation core mods in my area by using this approach. Generally what had actually happened is the intent was poorly communicated (in some cases oppositely conveyed) by the mod text. Another major stumbling block is "cold" running by GM's. Some modules just won't work that way, they need to be absorbed by the GM thoroughly so that when PC's go off the rails, they aren't forced into the linear progression of the GM paging through the mod and learing it as it goes. Nearly every "super-deadly" encounter I've encountered in LG was only really deadly in a narrow APL range. Which means the author wasn't intending to kill anyone, he just didn't playtest that band adequately, or the party was lucky when he did. Because of the impact of party type and mix on what is deadly, I would not give "super-deadly" rating to anything I had not run randomized, simulated parties through a least 3 times. Generally such an encounter will kill 1-2 PC's in my Core-only, core-access-only, iconinc PC's with uninspired feat/spell selection parties, and sometimes cause a TPK (Where a normally difficult APL+3 encounter will put 1-2 PC's in danger but not really kill anyone barring very bad luck). My parties had better coordination and tactics than an average table of strangers at a convention, but generally less individually powerful characters. Unless I'm a playtester, my feedback came too late to ever change a module, but it quite often was very helpful in changing the experience for local players. Either because my critique went out to all the GM's running it for local conventions...or because the slotzero most of them had was me running it..and they passed along their experience in how they ran it. I don't run modules I don't like, but many of the mods I've run in LG were the ones that I didn't especially enjoy as a player. It's kind of odd in a way, but it isn't a contradiction. I just didn't run those modules until I understood what was good about them, and brought my enthusiasm to the table which hopefully lead to a good experience. Just as an example, Rallying Point for the Bright Sands has fantastic NPC interactions if the GM is up to it, and makes it worth dealing with some of the oddball (and crummy IMHO..WOTC mechanics not author-introduced badness beyond choosing the monsters) mechanics that drove some of the combat encounters. I know that at my convention table what the players talked about afterwards was the table roleplay (in combat and out of it) and not the combats...and that they were having fun. (three stayed late just to interact longer with one NPC...during their meal time...) Player of many, many LG games GM of many LG modules, including fully prepping for all APLs Playtester of a number of LG modules Writer of exactly one minimission with a 2-12 level range Editor of no LG modules, beyond statblock assistance post-playtest
_metz_ 04-09-08, 10:20 PM	When I have an unusually bad experience, my tendency is to first read the module. Most of the time it is the GM. When it is the author, I've actually pro-actively contacted them and talked about what they were trying to do. I ended up running some of the worst-reputation core mods in my area by using this approach. This is a great idea, and I know I have tried to do it, but not everyone knows the authors... I know I don't know many non regional ones, and those I do know I do only via teh intartube (sic) Nearly every "super-deadly" encounter I've encountered in LG was only really deadly in a narrow APL range. Which means the author wasn't intending to kill anyone, he just didn't playtest that band adequately, or the party was lucky when he did. Because of the impact of party type and mix on what is deadly, I would not give "super-deadly" rating to anything I had not run randomized, simulated parties through a least 3 times. Agreed. However sometimes those killer APLs are in places where they should have been better thought out. (See APL 6 dominion over the bright sands) these are the ones that I notice have legitimate reason to be irritated by. My issue is often not with these things, but more with how a lot of modules these days don't take into account how non optimised con parties will deal with them. Again, I point to the increasing use of online gaming for playtesting. Is an online table ever really a good simulation of an LG games day/con muster?
nony2klerch 04-10-08, 12:30 AM	Despite popular belief, I also ask for feedback... I also temper that feedback by considering the source...if I know that player is also a writer or a triad or a editor I might give it more credibility. But if the module wasn't "fun" I _would_ like to know why regardless of the source, to see if it was a judge or just sour grapes. Of course people play this game for different reasons so your mileage here is definitely going to vary. But for the "most" part RPGA players should be playing "heroic" type characters that want "good" things to happen in the world. Especially since in LG Evil is not allowed. Chaotic Neutral can get away with as much as the judge allows, but there's a fine line....anyway.... I've written a couple of modules, several interactives and I've been on the short end of the stick from modules as well...so as a writer I try not to repeat those things I dislike <Soapbox> As a writer, I try and I'll repeat TRY to write challenging adventures that enforce team mechanics. You're not a Party of adventurers for nothing you see. There are things I'm better at, I've written one investigative module...it's a lot harder...than say "The Reaping"...which alot of people nicknamed "the Raping"...not my fault I blame all of it on Jeff. (although nowadays he says I can't do that anymore) It had some humor, it had oots references and it had some really "interesting" traps/combats...just because you put the cloak of powerlessness on your paladin's mount (insided a forbidded area and can't unsummon it) dont come crying to me...long story. The more memorable modules are not the ones you blast through or walk through in 90min...they are the ones that you have to use those one use favors that took you to -190 with a delay death or the one where you mem'd just the right spell to get you out of the jam (reverse gravity anyone?) The challenging modules... The problem is the borderline between challenging and absolute destruction of the party....and that line is very fine. It could be a single dice roll either way that makes the difference. (in playtests even the playtest completely changed one of my modules and THAT turned me into a misanthrope later on down the line...but that is another story all together...right "Minus 2"?) sorry I like anecdotes...:D Judges are the defense for that (and that's another thread thats been covered already)... LFR will have a different process than LG so we will see what difference it will make in editing but the problem there is also the difference in the entire system/mind set. (which could lead to entire different set of problems). FWIW Lynn
kinevon 04-10-08, 02:31 AM	Of course people play this game for different reasons so your mileage here is definitely going to vary. But for the "most" part RPGA players should be playing "heroic" type characters that want "good" things to happen in the world. Especially since in LG Evil is not allowed. Chaotic Neutral can get away with as much as the judge allows, but there's a fine line....anyway.... So, how do you deal with a module that doesn't allow good to win? For example, there is a module where you either have to kill good creatures and turn an evil artifact loose, or allow a devil to take the soul of an innocent child. IMO, neither way is what I would call winning.
JohnduBois 04-10-08, 07:33 AM	So, how do you deal with a module that doesn't allow good to win? For example, there is a module where you either have to kill good creatures and turn an evil artifact loose, or allow a devil to take the soul of an innocent child. IMO, neither way is what I would call winning. No. You don't. The adventure you refer to is a rare adventure that highly rewards outside-the-box thinking. In fact, Sam and I were talking last night about how that mod is the right way to put good outsiders in a mod as opponents. If you think that you had to kill the good outsider and "turn the artifact loose", you didn't listen to the terms of the mission closely enough. And to cut off the next question, every table I've run of the mod you're talking about thought of the "outside the box" solution, and there's even a favor on the AR tied to it.
JohnduBois 04-10-08, 07:35 AM	(in playtests even the playtest completely changed one of my modules and THAT turned me into a misanthrope later on down the line...but that is another story all together...right "Minus 2"?) I don't know what you're talking about. I thought we were going to start referring to that PC as "Plus 2". After all, how often does the same PC get to be an anecdote twice? P.S. You still owe me refreshments as a result of BASHCon.
Cpttylorx 04-10-08, 12:30 PM	I play a very very nerotic chaoticly aligned pc. I walk the line that is mentioned alot - and I appreciate the old grittyness of Greyhawk. Good wasnt always meant to win in Greyhawk. This was the shades of grey campaign. I know the module your talking about, and I dont think you paid the judge enough attention when he was telling you all of your options. As the old saying goes (Or at least my character saying goes, when I'm not being arrested in Furyondy) Good will win out most of the time in most of the places. For everywhere else there is Sin. Take it how you will
nony2klerch 04-10-08, 12:35 PM	I don't know what you're talking about. I thought we were going to start referring to that PC as "Plus 2". After all, how often does the same PC get to be an anecdote twice? P.S. You still owe me refreshments as a result of BASHCon. I do...I do indeed. (probably two :pint: ) So, how do you deal with a module that doesn't allow good to win? For example, there is a module where you either have to kill good creatures and turn an evil artifact loose, or allow a devil to take the soul of an innocent child. IMO, neither way is what I would call winning. Sorry I don't do bandit kindoms/IUZ...:noway: BUT, in the modules that offer a no win scenario I would look for the Kobiashi Moru solution...(like John said try to think outside the box) Personally as a players I'd have to know more details, but the least harm to do most good is generally the precept... :detect: Lynn
solbergb 04-10-08, 03:12 PM	No. You don't. The adventure you refer to is a rare adventure that highly rewards outside-the-box thinking. In fact, Sam and I were talking last night about how that mod is the right way to put good outsiders in a mod as opponents. If you think that you had to kill the good outsider and "turn the artifact loose", you didn't listen to the terms of the mission closely enough. Yeah. Outcomes when I played/ran it had neither scenario (killing good creatures or endangering soul of child or freeing evil artifact) as outcome. Although in one case they took a significant risk with the kid's life and the artifact in order to get a totally clean outcome. at lower APL's the usual solution was to destroy the item. It can be done with any strong character+sledghammer (or other 2h weapon) given time and if you don't pick it up, it can't fight back. At my table we used favored-soul spammed shatter on the broken pieces, at another they used acid breath from a draconic sorceress to turn it into sludge. This was a solution the guardian would allow...the destroyed remnants of the artifact could be removed from the temple, as they are now incapable of taking over the minds of the adventurers or whatever. As long as all of the pieces were present, by the letter of the agreement, the devil had to take the remains instead of the kid. It is only a partial solution. Given sufficient effort the devil could reforge the weapon but it's at least 3/4 the cost of making it from scratch even with the materials (maybe more in the case of the sludge). At the APL8 table, one party did several things, and tried for a high risk/high reward approach. 1. Called in level 4+ spellcasting favors with various good aligned priests in Greyhawk (I think Tritherion and Cuthbert, maybe Pholtus too). What they get is one priest of level sufficient to cast the spell favor they had standing outside the courtyard and casting a single dismissal (on their initiative, heh..cleric inits...), then running. This helped quite a bit with the minions. 2. Gave the weapon back intact to the devil but then the second he grasped it, initiated combat, the goal being to disarm him of the item and make it vanish. To do this, they used a number of initiative increasing favors, at least two time-stop favors, a grease spell with cranked DC and a forced reroll at reduced save mod (backup plans included other ways of disarming him, if others went first). 3. Various other forms of disguise and misdirection in order to improve the odds they'd get a surprise round. Unfortunately, the spot and sense motive skills on such a creature are very high, and he rolled just a bit better than the PC's did, so they had to do it in straight initiative. 4. All planning done out of earshot of artifact, and it was transported in extradimensional space until the last minute, to avoid giving away the plan to it. Because of the odds of a clean victory given this plan, the celestial (per the module) was willing to take the risk and took the actions the mod said he would to assist the plan. (primarily, he will appear and dismiss the boss once the weapon is out of his hand). In spite of all that, the party had an EL+3 encounter after the dust cleared, with the remaining minions trying to retake the weapon and jump through the gate, the PC's trying to stop them without actually picking up the weapon and risking domination. It was quite an impressive effort on the PC's part but they pulled it off.
MwaO 04-10-08, 03:37 PM	Despite popular belief, I also ask for feedback... I also temper that feedback by considering the source...if I know that player is also a writer or a triad or a editor I might give it more credibility. But if the module wasn't "fun" I _would_ like to know why regardless of the source, to see if it was a judge or just sour grapes. Lynn Lynn came right up to me and asked for feedback on his two rounder at Weekend in Veluna(which if you're looking for a good, tough, fair mod Mattastrophic, you should try to play before the end of LG... - unfortunately, our table was a little weird due to being dragged up by a Wizard 11 who wasn't willing to play at the high APL table.) --------- But just some advice on structuring feedback - I teach art at the college level and critique is its own art form there: Regardless of how bad you might think the mod was, try to offer some kind of positive feedback to start - there must have been something that was good or interesting about the mod, assuming some level of work was put into it. Especially if you've seen other mods they've done. Then point out what you think isn't working. Be specific. Finally, point out what you think they should do going forward for the next mod(s). --------- I'd also note what Shawn is saying is precisely why I slammed Night of Madness - I don't think there's any point in giving constructive criticism - the mod shouldn't have been published.
kinevon 04-10-08, 05:26 PM	Yeah. Outcomes when I played/ran it had neither scenario (killing good creatures or endangering soul of child or freeing evil artifact) as outcome. Although in one case they took a significant risk with the kid's life and the artifact in order to get a totally clean outcome. Ummm. Maybe your DM handled the good guy different, but in our encounter, the only way to see the item was to take out that guardian. He wouldn't allow us to open the door, as that would initiate combat with the archon. No way to go outside the box, if you have to take out the servant to get outside the box, and our good-aligned party members were not willing to kill the archon to get to the evil artifact. That, and an artifact, by definition, is not going to be something that can be easily destroyed, unless the definition of artifact has changed. Or, as was asked during the mod, why hadn't good already destroyed the item? Because it wasn't easily possible to destroy it. YMMV.
dkay807 04-10-08, 06:00 PM	I'd also note what Shawn is saying is precisely why I slammed Night of Madness - I don't think there's any point in giving constructive criticism - the mod shouldn't have been published. QFT. Night of Badness ended in a way no module should have ended. In my opinion, apart from the obvious, one of the worst things that can happen in a module is the "well, what do we do now" situation. If a player at the table says "ugh... we walk around until we trigger a plot hook or a combat" and the judge is running your module as it is written, you know you've failed as an author. I would rather write a module that is an utter railroad (and make no attempt at disguising it) than to write a module that could create a situation like that. I go out of my way to give feedback to an author when I see something like that happen - assuming I have some way of getting in contact with the author.
rockondon 04-10-08, 06:25 PM	In my opinion, apart from the obvious, one of the worst things that can happen in a module is the "well, what do we do now" situation. If a player at the table says "ugh... we walk around until we trigger a plot hook or a combat" and the judge is running your module as it is written, you know you've failed as an author. ugh, I totally agree and I've played mods like that. Usually they're investigative mods. Sometimes its the fault of bad, unprepared GMing though. One mod I ran had a plot hook that triggered if the PCs went to a certain place, only at night, and search for half an hour. After reading through the mod 5 times and specifically looking for a single reason for the PCs to do this I could not find a single thing that would inspire them to do so. When I ran the mod, the PCs passed through the area during the day and I triggered the plot hook. If I have to run the mod not-as-written to give the players a good time, so be it. I've played a mod or two where the plot hook is going back to the inn to sleep. That seems normal enough but often results in the party wandering around for hours re-questioning every npc trying to figure out what question they didn't ask or what task they didn't do.
Timlagor 04-10-08, 09:13 PM	The module had a couple of major flaws - the bit that said to favour the PCs was tucked away in the background section at the beginning of the module where it was more likely to be forgotten/overlooked by harried GMs - it made no sense whatsoever that GODS hadn't destroyed the weapon earlier when they had it in their hands - it strongly implied (outright said?) that killing outsiders who hd been gated in just sent them home for a bit which contradicts a number of rules sources We subdued the archon and then broke the weapon. My centaur's favoured option was to deliver the weapon blade first but was dissuaded by the rest of the party despite his assurances that he was "strong of will and sout of heart!"
MwaO 04-10-08, 10:12 PM	QFT. Night of Badness ended in a way no module should have ended. In my opinion, apart from the obvious, one of the worst things that can happen in a module is the "well, what do we do now" situation. If a player at the table says "ugh... we walk around until we trigger a plot hook or a combat" and the judge is running your module as it is written, you know you've failed as an author. I think that's being a little harsh on the writers, there - the problem is often that some parties(or players) are ill-equipped to play a particular mod and the options are all unpleasant. Double the length of the mod, have a trigger hook contact the players...I mean NPC, etc... Though I think most investigative mods should have 'an alternate ending' where you fight all the same stat blocks(getting full xp/gold), but the AR access is lousy because you didn't figure it out.
Surgebuster 04-10-08, 10:39 PM	The module had a couple of major flaws - the bit that said to favour the PCs was tucked away in the background section at the beginning of the module where it was more likely to be forgotten/overlooked by harried GMs - it made no sense whatsoever that GODS hadn't destroyed the weapon earlier when they had it in their hands - it strongly implied (outright said?) that killing outsiders who hd been gated in just sent them home for a bit which contradicts a number of rules sources We subdued the archon and then broke the weapon. My centaur's favoured option was to deliver the weapon blade first but was dissuaded by the rest of the party despite his assurances that he was "strong of will and sout of heart!" I feel plenty of sympathy for the author over the response to the adventure in question. As I understand it, the editor/reviewer made wholesale changes to it without consultation, with the author only finding out after release. For example, the protaganist was actually a very specific demon (that fitted the theme), which was changed to a devil. This change was done poorly enough that things like the cold iron weapon available to the PCs at the beginning of the adventure wasn't even changed to silver to account for the DR. For an experience that rested primarily upon ethical dilemma, with decisions being made based on who to deal with, having wholesale alterations made without consulatation with the author meant it would never live up to the original premise (or promise). Just my two cents. :) Joe
rpgdcj 04-10-08, 11:24 PM	No. You don't. The adventure you refer to is a rare adventure that highly rewards outside-the-box thinking. In fact, Sam and I were talking last night about how that mod is the right way to put good outsiders in a mod as opponents. If you think that [you had to kill the good outsider and "turn the artifact loose", you didn't listen to the terms of the mission closely enough. And to cut off the next question, every table I've run of the mod you're talking about thought of the "outside the box" solution, and there's even a favor on the AR tied to it. The problem with that mod is that the DM needs to allow "outside the box" thinking. We specifically told the archon we wanted to destroy the sword and deliver the pieces. The archon responded "if it were that easy, we would have destroyed it already. No deal." We could not come up with another valid method, and made our choice based on our alignment. We didn't really want to fight the archon, so we ended up with the disfavor.
Hariman 04-11-08, 01:07 AM	The problem with that mod is that the DM needs to allow "outside the box" thinking. We specifically told the archon we wanted to destroy the sword and deliver the pieces. The archon responded "if it were that easy, we would have destroyed it already. No deal." We could not come up with another valid method, and made our choice based on our alignment. We didn't really want to fight the archon, so we ended up with the disfavor. Ah, I remember that mod. I liked it. BUT: You need at least one player who searches for that out of the box solution. AND you need to get the artifact off of the guardian. My party had more trouble getting the artifact than coming up with the solution. The solution to the problem of the guardian is also simpler than it seems. You don't need to kill him. You just need to get the artifact and get away. Oh, and our paladin ended up needing an atonement. But the paladin's player was fine with that. It's not complex, but it's not something I can post without spoilers.
RanielK 04-11-08, 09:11 AM	So, how do you deal with a module that doesn't allow good to win? For example, there is a module where you either have to kill good creatures and turn an evil artifact loose, or allow a devil to take the soul of an innocent child. IMO, neither way is what I would call winning. Just an important note: You don't kill a good creature. You defeat him and then he goes home instantaneously (at 0 hp). At least, I'm about 99% sure on this. I haven't read the mod. It's not his fault he isn't intelligent enough to be flexible enough to help you fulfil the LETTER of your agreement without fulfilling the spirit. As for how you get out of the whole thing? Fulfill the letter of the agreement. Just make sure the agreement is very vague on certain specifics. One such detail comes down to whether or not the thing is an Artifact or just a realy cool, magical weapon. Both can be called artifacts by an NPC, but only one is such according to the rules. Artifacts can't be destroyed by means available at APLs 2 to 16. Mordy's Disjunction has a small chance, but you gotta be 17 at least. Really cool weapons can be cut into pieces by an adamantine great axe and then put into a sack (minus a tiny sliver or two) and delivered. This does require the agreement not stipulate the condition of the weapon, only that the weapon be turned over.
solbergb 04-11-08, 01:53 PM	Ummm. Maybe your DM handled the ...different Having read the module, what our DM did was absolutely covered in the module, and what your GM did indicated that he probably had not prepped it properly. If your GM runs the mod cold, you miss most of the out of box options that exist. Ditto if the GM is adversarial and doesn't like the idea of a nonlinear run, but in my experience, most "bad" games were not caused by GM malice, but the GM actually not knowing options existed and covering his ignorance with inflexibility.
solbergb 04-11-08, 02:00 PM	Just an important note: You don't kill a good creature. You defeat him and then he goes home instantaneously (at 0 hp). At least, I'm about 99% sure on this. I haven't read the mod. It's not his fault he isn't intelligent enough to be In 3.x that is only true of summoned creatures. Called creatures (most things you fight, since they last more than round/level, can summon others and aren't hedged by prot alignment) die for real when killed, just like PC's die for real when planar traveling. In 1st (and likely 2nd) edition, this wasn't true. Note that death for a devil is just demotion to lemure status generally. He still has an afterlife...he just has to start over as a mindless weak critter tormented by everyone around him, including his old enemies if they find out. There are some sourcebook contradictions on this (some say that a dead outsider is permadead, no separation of soul and body) but revive outsider spells exist, and the sourcebooks on the abyss and the 9 hells talk about what happens after failure and death, and it isn't extinction, barring things like sphere of anhillation or other soul-killing effects.
Samwise 04-11-08, 06:31 PM	For an experience that rested primarily upon ethical dilemma, with decisions being made based on who to deal with, having wholesale alterations made without consulatation with the author meant it would never live up to the original premise (or promise). Just my two cents. :) Joe And this is where constructive criticism typically breaks down. A lot of work was put into that adventure, by Dean Bailey and myself. I thought when I was given the outline that it was an incredibly good concept, and would work extremely well with a few minor issues resolved, and the big "What happens when the PCs think this far outside the box?" situation was accounted for. I think that was managed. JohnduBois and solbergb have the intent of the adventure, whether or not it worked that way for everyone. For those it did not work out for, go ahead and blame me. I very much enjoyed working with Dean on that adventure, and I was looking forward to working on more Domain of Greyhawk adventures with him. He deserves all the credit for everything good in that adventure. Unfortunately, once the discussion turns to finger pointing about certain issues, it makes addressing those issues impossible.
Timlagor 04-11-08, 07:45 PM	I don't see how any of this is relevant to the problems in the module that I cited. I don't know of anyone complaining about the devil of the weapons needed to defeat it. The problems are all with the 'artefact' being there at all and the writing of the module not making it clear enough to cold DMs (hard for an ill-prepared DM to see the part of the module that allows for the premise making no sense). It also seemed to have the 'what happens to dead outsiders' rules wrong. ...and that's even granting that the players suggest a solution that they know makes the whole module premise ridiculous in the first place. I feel plenty of sympathy for the author over the response to the adventure in question. As I understand it, the editor/reviewer made wholesale changes to it without consultation, with the author only finding out after release. For example, the protaganist was actually a very specific demon (that fitted the theme), which was changed to a devil. This change was done poorly enough that things like the cold iron weapon available to the PCs at the beginning of the adventure wasn't even changed to silver to account for the DR. For an experience that rested primarily upon ethical dilemma, with decisions being made based on who to deal with, having wholesale alterations made without consulatation with the author meant it would never live up to the original premise (or promise). Just my two cents. :) Joe
wangka 04-12-08, 03:53 PM	As a fairly new player: 1. My experience with the module with the ethical dilemma (which I generally enjoyed, but learning the details about one specific suggested solution kinda left a sour note.) And to cut off the next question, every table I've run of the mod you're talking about thought of the "outside the box" solution, and there's even a favor on the AR tied to it. The potentially clever "out-of-the-box" solution indicated in the module has some reasonable objections both when playing and running the module. As mentioned before (I think timlagor and kinevon pointed this out): Apparently even 2nd or 4th level parties could do something that apparently the gods of good and their servants had not (or would not have thought of?). After all, there was little reason indicated what the purpose of guarding the item would do versus the good dieties/servants themselves pursuing the "out-of-the-box" solution. (sorry for being obtuse; I need to figure out spoiler text.) Encouraging the DM/players to engage in devil lawyer chicanery is another thing entirely though, but, unfortunately, I wasn't clever enough to find any other loopholes ... 2. Similarly, as a general area of concern (not so much a criticism), is that by having a lot of authors, consistency in the game world can be problematic. For instance, some adventures seem to encourage the "reclaiming" of temple/altar/religious items of value wheras others may punish or even curse for such an affront. This is largely unhelpful because it's unspecific, but often it seems clever approaches are hugely rewarded by some authors, often not address by others (and thus very DM dependent), and occassionally b slapped in a few. I'll try to review some mods for some more specific examples. 3. I think the largest of problems and complaints often center around the difficulty and challenge of the adventure. It's an inherent flaw in the system of this kind of living campaign, that even at a specfic APL, there can be a *huge* variation of a group's effectiveness. Number of players (six is a massive advantage over 4), type of characters, and (perhaps most importantly) the skill/teamwork level of the players are all difficult-to-control-for variables. Compounded by an impercise CR/ECL system, well, it's quite an achievement that most mods seem to be fairly well built to provide a challenge that's neither cakewalk nor TPK. Any solution may add more trouble/hassle to the mix, but one thought is that perhaps at each APL, for select encounters, the DM has the flexibility to determine if the party is weak, average, or strong and follow what the module recommends in that case - like add/subtract a minion or two - depending on the case. Or improve positioning of opponents, etc. 4. Successful "out-of-the-box" approaches, in addition to diplomatically bypassing encounters, are often "punished" by the access/GP system. While it makes sense, it seems to indirectly encourage first approaching potential encounters as combats. Adding in a equivalent reward for bypassing or foiling an encounter may be one solution, but that may be over complicating and, again, too much hassle. 5. Excessive box text. Especially when it's more about telling someone else's story and has little bearing on adventure outcome. A few, judiciously placed bits of backstory and other plot elements, I think, are often more effective than pages of text. Plus, the story is more compelling for the playesr if it's mostly about the PCs dramatic heroism/thrilling adventure (and that makes certain exceptions of different types of modules more memorable). 6. "Fixed encounters." Automatic surprise right next to the party (without clear reason). Or things like having ogres pop up 40' away from a campsite in the middle of clear/sparse hills. I sometimes feel like I'm playing a FPS with a bad graphics card and the world only exists 60' around the party. I apologize again from being vague and generalizing so much; most of the modules I've played/run are still active. I do think a venue for *constructive* criticism is a great idea. That should improve the experience for everyone involved.
Hariman 04-12-08, 09:13 PM	3. I think the largest of problems and complaints often center around the difficulty and challenge of the adventure. It's an inherent flaw in the system of this kind of living campaign, that even at a specfic APL, there can be a *huge* variation of a group's effectiveness. Number of players (six is a massive advantage over 4), type of characters, and (perhaps most importantly) the skill/teamwork level of the players are all difficult-to-control-for variables. Compounded by an impercise CR/ECL system, well, it's quite an achievement that most mods seem to be fairly well built to provide a challenge that's neither cakewalk nor TPK. Any solution may add more trouble/hassle to the mix, but one thought is that perhaps at each APL, for select encounters, the DM has the flexibility to determine if the party is weak, average, or strong and follow what the module recommends in that case - like add/subtract a minion or two - depending on the case. Or improve positioning of opponents, etc. An adjustable number of enemies or adjustable strengths of enemies has been brought up before. But it's fraught with the same sort of problems as the current system. Even with adjustable encounters, it's easy to misjudge the strength of a party over the course of a mod. In one encounter they might win spectacularly by either skill or luck. But an equal encounter later on might nearly TPK the party due to bad luck or due to a weakness in party structure. (No melee or arcane, lack of a cleric for undead, etc.) The greater problem is that we need more careful editing for some mods. (I mean no offense, but there are a few mods that need tweaked at certain APLs.) Unfortunately, given the random variation in D&D, there will probably still be killer APLs in mods here and there. Not to mention misplaced blame for a lack of party cohesion or sheer bad luck. I've seen some 6 man parties fragment into 3 people fighting, 1 guy hiding and 2 guys trying to negotiate. Or half the party gets disabled by a spell and the other half struggles to stay alive. At the same time, I've seen 4 or 5 man parties roll right over a 6 man party's brutal encounter through superior character planning, better tactics and effective teamwork. Of course, I've also seen 4 man party's get totally humiliated and 6 man parties make another party's near TPK look easy. 5. Excessive box text. Especially when it's more about telling someone else's story and has little bearing on adventure outcome. A few, judiciously placed bits of backstory and other plot elements, I think, are often more effective than pages of text. Plus, the story is more compelling for the playesr if it's mostly about the PCs dramatic heroism/thrilling adventure (and that makes certain exceptions of different types of modules more memorable). 6. "Fixed encounters." Automatic surprise right next to the party (without clear reason). Or things like having ogres pop up 40' away from a campsite in the middle of clear/sparse hills. I sometimes feel like I'm playing a FPS with a bad graphics card and the world only exists 60' around the party. These issues have both been brought up before. There are writers addressing the issue of autosurprise as most surprise rounds in later mods have a skill check attached to them. Boxed text amounts will vary by writer. Some are more verbose and others less. It is also possible that something from that "extra" boxed text might come into play in another mod. I apologize again from being vague and generalizing so much; most of the modules I've played/run are still active. I do think a venue for *constructive* criticism is a great idea. That should improve the experience for everyone involved. The key to constructive criticism is knowing what needs to be criticized. For one party, it might have been a lack of cohesion. For another, a lack of a cleric. One player might have an ineffective character/strategy. Some mods are designed to be tough because they are a conclusion to an extended storyline. Others are tough because the writer doesn't want to let everybody roll over a certain enemy. Some mods are honest mistakes from the aforementioned lack of precision in the APL/CR system. The trick won't be setting up a forum for constructive criticism. It will be sorting out the constructive criticism from everything else. Hariman PS: Luck can be huge in playing a character. I had a rogue wizard with Point Blank and Precise Shot that frequently missed ranged touch attacks because I rolled below 5 on the attack rolls. PPS: To make a spoiler block simply type [/SBLOCK] at the end of the spoiler text and at the beginning of the spoiler text. [SBLOCK]Typing them backwards like I did above does nothing. Typing them in the right order does this.
Pulpit 04-13-08, 01:32 PM	Constructive Criticism for Mods? Absolutely. I am currently in a creative writing program, have won multiple awards, fellowships, and grants for my work, and have been published in several literary journals, and teach creative writing classes myself. So there's a little bit of background. I'm no expert by any means, but I have a great love for writing. Now, when listening to criticism, everything must be taken with a grain of salt. One of the big things as a writer, is learning to listen, to learn from what you hear, and to learn what to ignore. But not all criticism is bad, and it's often the worst writers or those who aren't very good who ignore everything that's being said. Now there is a right and a wrong way to comment on work. Lets use poetry as an example. When critiquing poems, we should be looking for certain things, for example: Clarity - does this make sense, is this image clear, can we see or understand what's going on. Syntax - sentence structure, how's it sound, do the sentences make sense, is it odd. Grammar - how is punctuation used, etc Structure - how is form working, line breaks, how does it effect shape, content, etc. Now, I know people are wondering what this has to do with mod writing. And I think it's quite a bit actually. What I'm trying to point out is that there are very real, very concrete things we can point to to help writers. And mod writing is even easier to work with than say fiction or poetry because there are actual rules mechanics involved, things that we as readers or testers can point to. One of the rules I often tell me students is to never say "I like" or "I didn't Like" but rather to point to what is or isn't working, and then give very clear examples as to why or why not it's working. And this carries over to mod writing. I think it's somewhat safe to say we can ignore posts like "X mod writers is leet" or "X writer is a nub." But if comments point to things like "a 40 DC was a bit much for first level characters" or "the PC name Snickers took me out of the game", etc. Things that could be pointed out in a mod would be: Clarity - Does a story make sense, is continuity working, objectives clear, etc. Encounters - are they within the means of an average 4 person party, do they make sense for this adventure, do they flow, slow the game down, do they require only one class that may or may not be in the group. Characters - bland, overpowering, do they add or contribute to the mod, are they clear, defined, etc. Roles - is the roles of the pc's clear, not clear, are they important. These are just a few things to look at. But they are concise and clear, without being rude or mean, just areas for the writer to look at. And these are just some. There was a post in the xendrik forums about mods. And I mention that thread because it highlighted soemthing else that I think is a big factor in constructive criticism. And that's the writers being able to accept criticism, which is not an easy thing to do. Granted, they're not going to take every post to heart, but nor do I think they should ignore everyone. It think it's as simple a matter of posting something like "thanks for your concerns, I'll look into it." That way the writer can approach things at his own pace, as well as mainting a professional demeanor, something that melted away in that other thread. There is one other thing I'd like to mention about mods and comments, and that is the trend I've noticed of mod writers also play testing thier own games. To really be able to see what is or isn't working, I don't think a writer should EVER play test his own work. I understand that this is easier said than done, with time and money, etc. But having someone else playtest this, and then give feedback in a professional manner, would catch some of the oddball mistakes that have slipping by. Even though it may make sense in the writers mind, it doens't always translate in the writing. This would help catch that.
Vamroc 04-13-08, 10:53 PM	QFT. Night of Badness ended in a way no module should have ended. I would rather write a module that is an utter railroad (and make no attempt at disguising it) than to write a module that could create a situation like that. I go out of my way to give feedback to an author when I see something like that happen - assuming I have some way of getting in contact with the author. Write a mod about an NPC who builds a train and all the players are stuck on it through the whole adventure. :rimshot:
Hariman 04-14-08, 01:53 AM	Write a mod about an NPC who builds a train and all the players are stuck on it through the whole adventure. :rimshot: Oh, but that could make a great open ended role adventure. Toss in at least three different sides the party can side with, some mook train robbers for thug encounter number one and an encounter that's set at a stopped point to give the party a chance to use spells and abilities that they can't use in the train and you're ready to rock! I'd say the bigger problem is explaining why there is a train in the Flaness. Hmmm. It's too bad the campaign is ending or I'd actually see if I could get help and get this mod off the ground.
Reylance 04-14-08, 10:47 AM	Sorry I don't do bandit kindoms/IUZ...:noway: BUT, in the modules that offer a no win scenario I would look for the Kobiashi Moru solution...(like John said try to think outside the box) Personally as a players I'd have to know more details, but the least harm to do most good is generally the precept... :detect: The only problem is the RPGA guidelines do not allow Kobayashi Maru solutions, which if you remember, was "won" by cheating.
Vamroc 04-14-08, 01:29 PM	Oh, but that could make a great open ended role adventure. Toss in at least three different sides the party can side with, some mook train robbers for thug encounter number one and an encounter that's set at a stopped point to give the party a chance to use spells and abilities that they can't use in the train and you're ready to rock! I'd say the bigger problem is explaining why there is a train in the Flaness. Hmmm. It's too bad the campaign is ending or I'd actually see if I could get help and get this mod off the ground. That's easy just tell the players the person who build it had a vision of a now destroyed realm called Eberron and thought OMG I'll never have to clean horse poop off of my boots ever again. The great thing about this mod is once LFR hit's you can set it there and it really doesn't change how the mod works at all. In case you don't know how machinery in Eberron works elementals are bonded to sections of the craft they want to make and when those crafts crash the binding magic is destroyed. Often releasing hundreds of elementals these power lights (Electricity) heat (Fire) or flight (Air) how many are used depends on the size of the craft they even use water elementals for fire fighting and beverages.
Nutation 04-14-08, 03:19 PM	A lot of work was put into that adventure, by Dean Bailey and myself. I thought when I was given the outline that it was an incredibly good concept, and would work extremely well with a few minor issues resolved, and the big "What happens when the PCs think this far outside the box?" situation was accounted for. I think that was managed. You listed something like 12 possible outcomes. The amount of work put in is obvious. (This is with the advantage of hindsight) That module definitely allows out-of-the-box solutions. I think the judge needs to be nudged that direction, though, if it's the outcome you hoped for. I would also list valid sideways solutions 1, 2, and 3 for the judge's benefit. (Checking the module text, you listed one.) I think you included the right amount of information and guidance for the player (which is a lot if they go looking). Any additional prodding should be at the judge's discretion (assuming a prepared judge; always a potential problem). Edit: Basically, really important plot points and preferred plot flow should be made obvious to the judge. Not necessarily to the players.
Samwise 04-14-08, 04:03 PM	(This is with the advantage of hindsight) That module definitely allows out-of-the-box solutions. I think the judge needs to be nudged that direction, though, if it's the outcome you hoped for. I would also list valid sideways solutions 1, 2, and 3 for the judge's benefit. (Checking the module text, you listed one.) I think you included the right amount of information and guidance for the player (which is a lot if they go looking). Any additional prodding should be at the judge's discretion (assuming a prepared judge; always a potential problem). All feedback means casting 20/20 Hindsight. (An improved version of true seeing. ;)) What you note was a big consideration in the development; just how much to say or suggest or direct the DM to hint at. That is always one of the key parts of the development process, as well as one of the hardest. Those authors who have worked with me know that one of my common comments is "What happens when the DM screws this section up?" And indeed, there is a point past which you cannot ensure a bad DM will not deliberately screw up even the most blatantly stated intent if he is set and determined to do so, or just simply totally unprepared. That means having to inevitably decide how much text is "wasted" on damage control, and how much is saved for more adventure. That said, I do see what you mean, and I believe you are correct. A more thorough summary for the DM of the variety of resolution options would have helped, particularly for people who have to prepare rapidly.
nony2klerch 04-14-08, 07:41 PM	That would mean that a section (perhaps bolded or highlighted in some fashion) "IF you have little time to prepare...make sure you read this Section on troubleshooting and tactics" would help...those that have to run the module "cold" or with little time to prepare. Just a thought. But then if the author put a good outline in the module this should explain the gist of what the encounter(s) was attempting to accomplish. The judge has to read it though. The line between a poor module and a poorly prepared judge may be hard to discern sometimes. Lynn
Madfox11 04-15-08, 10:01 AM	My experience with situations that require outside-of-the-boxed thinking is that it can cause players to be REALLY frustrated about the adventure either because they are not up to task (most often due to tiredness) OR because the DM fails to provide the correct framework. One table of extremely frustrated players can be more than enough to ruin the adventure for countless others because as soon as you hear an adventure is bad, it becomes increasingly more difficult to think about alternative sollutions. When I write and review adventures I try to avoid situations that can be solved only through outside of the boxed thinking, and I certainly avoid adding very bad AR items for failing to uphold to the author's standard. I have had extensive discussions with authors about the fact that a Living Greyhawk adventure is NOT the same a home campaign adventure and that some things just do not work as expected.
nony2klerch 04-15-08, 04:26 PM	The only problem is the RPGA guidelines do not allow Kobayashi Maru solutions, which if you remember, was "won" by cheating. Not an entirely accurate analogy on my part since that was Starfleets attempt to see how the prospective captains would react to an unsurmountable/no-win scenario. But it does exemplify "thinking outside the box;" because Kirk reprogrammed the scenario to allow a winnable solution, thereby coming up with a solution to an no-win scenario. Whether or not it was cheating, is a coin flip between innovative thinking because the scenario writers (in this case Starfleet) didn't think that someone would come at the problem from that angle...and change the scenario entirely or cheating _because_ he changed the scenario entirely. Either way, if memory serves he did receive a reward for "innovative thinking" or something like that... But then...this analogy is based off of a fictional work anyway... Lynn
jpchapleau 04-16-08, 06:10 PM	Do LG authors in general get much feedback or criticism of their modules from the playerbase at large? I've gotten zip, and I know Simpi often bemoans its lack as well, even for his Cores and metaregionals. I will chime in on this thread. I have to say that I agree with many of the others saying that good feedback is *VERY* hard to get. I have been using the County of Urnst (Nyrond) site to get feedback for adventures. Scores and results vary greatly: -PCs who played with wrong character for access -PCs who had a bad judge (bad, doesn't understand the adventure, unprepared). -PCs who don't care about the story -PCs who had a bad table -PCs who had a bad day -PCs who hate the author (I am not a fan of Chris Chesher's modules myself and rarely find myself enjoying those as much as I might). A lot of those things are view by many player/DM as a bad module, which is not necessarily true. Also add to the fact that even when given the opportunity to give feedback, many players do not do so. Many of my adventures have a email address in there where I can be reached but have received very few responses. JP
bitznarf 04-17-08, 12:47 PM	Yeah. Outcomes when I played/ran it had neither scenario (killing good creatures or endangering soul of child or freeing evil artifact) as outcome. Although in one case they took a significant risk with the kid's life and the artifact in order to get a totally clean outcome. at lower APL's the usual solution was to destroy the item. It can be done with any strong character+sledghammer (or other 2h weapon) given time and if you don't pick it up, it can't fight back. At my table we used favored-soul spammed shatter on the broken pieces, at another they used acid breath from a draconic sorceress to turn it into sludge. This was a solution the guardian would allow...the destroyed remnants of the artifact could be removed from the temple, as they are now incapable of taking over the minds of the adventurers or whatever. As long as all of the pieces were present, by the letter of the agreement, the devil had to take the remains instead of the kid. It is only a partial solution. Given sufficient effort the devil could reforge the weapon but it's at least 3/4 the cost of making it from scratch even with the materials (maybe more in the case of the sludge). At the APL8 table, one party did several things, and tried for a high risk/high reward approach. 1. Called in level 4+ spellcasting favors with various good aligned priests in Greyhawk (I think Tritherion and Cuthbert, maybe Pholtus too). What they get is one priest of level sufficient to cast the spell favor they had standing outside the courtyard and casting a single dismissal (on their initiative, heh..cleric inits...), then running. This helped quite a bit with the minions. 2. Gave the weapon back intact to the devil but then the second he grasped it, initiated combat, the goal being to disarm him of the item and make it vanish. To do this, they used a number of initiative increasing favors, at least two time-stop favors, a grease spell with cranked DC and a forced reroll at reduced save mod (backup plans included other ways of disarming him, if others went first). 3. Various other forms of disguise and misdirection in order to improve the odds they'd get a surprise round. Unfortunately, the spot and sense motive skills on such a creature are very high, and he rolled just a bit better than the PC's did, so they had to do it in straight initiative. 4. All planning done out of earshot of artifact, and it was transported in extradimensional space until the last minute, to avoid giving away the plan to it. Because of the odds of a clean victory given this plan, the celestial (per the module) was willing to take the risk and took the actions the mod said he would to assist the plan. (primarily, he will appear and dismiss the boss once the weapon is out of his hand). In spite of all that, the party had an EL+3 encounter after the dust cleared, with the remaining minions trying to retake the weapon and jump through the gate, the PC's trying to stop them without actually picking up the weapon and risking domination. It was quite an impressive effort on the PC's part but they pulled it off. .. Unfortunately, at my table anyway, the way it was presented to us by the DM, anything we suggested to the celestial (including most of the options you outlined above) would not work for some reason or another - for example the devil could just reforge the weapon, or come back for the kid later, etc. We spent 3 hours online trying to find a solution before we gave up. In the end we got the celestials favour but the disfavour of the the boys father by going along with the celestial's plan. In essence, if it involved even seeing Souleater, the celestial would not allow it. So we either had to subdue Rasimu (which half the party tried to do with the other half getting in the way), work with Rasimu (which apparently got the ending listed above), or leave.
Fsi-Dib 04-22-08, 03:37 AM	I admit for not giving almost any feedback about modules to their writers, mainly because I feel it to be in vain. The feedback won't necessarily make any big modifications to the module afterwards (unless there's some huge fluke mentioned by everyone) nor does the author even note it! The latter is the biggest problem; ignorance. If you are given feedback, whether it's good or bad, it's still feedback. Someone might shout "It was crap!" and leave it at that. Sure, it isn't constructive at all. However, if multiple sources say the same thing, something is definitely wrong. I'm curious how much some people ask advice from other writers. Honestly said, some modules look they were made on the spot without any review or editing. Actually, there are such modules. It also requires a lot of guts to playtest a module and tell the author "This module sucked because of this this and this". No one wants to produce a bad module, would they?
Madfox11 04-22-08, 03:55 AM	It also requires a lot of guts to playtest a module and tell the author "This module sucked because of this this and this". No one wants to produce a bad module, would they? I certainly don't hope so. In any event, I learned a lot from seeing my adventures in play as well getting criticism on my adventures (and that of others). Mind you, I don't always agree with the comments and I can react a bit defensively at times, but I certainly listen. There is a reason why I tend to add "Unless the PCs go out of their way neither is suprised as per the rules in the PHB" even though I really wished such lines would not be needed (it is really irritating to hear a complaint about an encounter being run as an auto-surprise boxed text even though I never said it was - remember: unless otherwise stated follow the rules of the game ;)).
JohnduBois 04-22-08, 07:45 AM	It also requires a lot of guts to playtest a module and tell the author "This module sucked because of this this and this". No one wants to produce a bad module, would they? If I ever thought for a second that one of my playtesters felt that way, they'd never playtest for me again (well, in the remaining four opportunities to do so). Being able to provide criticism where needed is an essential part of playtesting.
Fsi-Dib 04-22-08, 08:07 AM	If I ever thought for a second that one of my playtesters felt that way, they'd never playtest for me again (well, in the remaining four opportunities to do so). Being able to provide criticism where needed is an essential part of playtesting. I meant to imply that the playtester would give constructive criticism, but also mention his/her great disappointment with the module, maybe with a harsh tone.
Samwise 04-22-08, 11:39 AM	I admit for not giving almost any feedback about modules to their writers, mainly because I feel it to be in vain. The feedback won't necessarily make any big modifications to the module afterwards (unless there's some huge fluke mentioned by everyone) nor does the author even note it! There are three people who need to hear the feedback: the author the regional reviewer the meta-regional or core reviewer Each of them will use the information in a somewhat different way. It is sometimes more critical to tell the reviewers instead of the authors about large scale problems, as the reviewers can adjust such elements in multiple adventures over a long time. The latter is the biggest problem; ignorance. If you are given feedback, whether it's good or bad, it's still feedback. Someone might shout "It was crap!" and leave it at that. Sure, it isn't constructive at all. However, if multiple sources say the same thing, something is definitely wrong. And that something may well be with the people complaining. There are many different kinds of faults in adventures. Some are simple editing (typos, grammar, and such), some are complex editing (statblocks), some are ignoring rules (because they make your story impossible), some are abusing rules (templates), some are stylistic differences in play (the adventure being too easy or too difficult), some are play experiences (lousy DM, obnoxious players), some are just failures in the execution of the idea. Fifty sources complaining about a lousy DM does not mean the adventure sucks. It may indicate a place the reviewer should insert extra reminders for DMs as damage control. Those are two very different issues for adventure development. I'm curious how much some people ask advice from other writers. Honestly said, some modules look they were made on the spot without any review or editing. Actually, there are such modules. Every chance I get at the few conventions I have been to I harangue people about how much they liked any adventures I have worked on, and what specific problems they have to cite with them. I maintain a list of general issues, and some of the more critical ones have been added to the writers' guidelines. It also requires a lot of guts to playtest a module and tell the author "This module sucked because of this this and this". No one wants to produce a bad module, would they? That is why you should tell the author if it sucks. Remember, your name is going to appear as a playtester.
_metz_ 04-22-08, 10:27 PM	I definitely agree with Sam on this one, most authors do make mistakes - I myself feel a bit harsh for coming down so hard on him for Something of Value, having since discussed it with him. I have to say it is the lack of reasoned feedback that prevents Authors/Triad etc to be able to make modules better, and I know In Perrenland some mods get errata with their passwords. The most important thing is to convey your intent in a module, I know I had a whole page on it in one of my mods, (never got finished because the campaign ended) which was titled "what the players need to achieve, and what the bad guys are doing" That was designed to help the GM understand loose timeframes, intents of NPCs, (e.g. coup de grace as acceptable or not) and the CONTEXT to an adventure. The Adventure background is REALLY important and you can tell a mod is trouble if it doesn't have a decent one. - Even Standalone modules need to establish a context from where they are getting their plot hook. A personal pet peeve of mine is poorly edited English in a module. It’s not hard to get a few people to look over it. - Print it off and run it over with a red pen. A third person is helpful for this.
nony2klerch 04-23-08, 05:09 PM	I got really constructive feedback on one of my modules and I made the recommended change (because we ended up trying to figure out how to change it after a 20-30min discussion) and that change ended up completely hosing a different party 8 months later. SO even with constructive feedback, certain situations will still arise that the feedback will do get will do you no avail...because of the actions (or inactions) of the players.... Heh..I'm going to use another Star Trek analogy...:D Star Trek III: Spock trying to figure out the calculations to get the enterprise back to their current time with the whale on board and he tells Kirk that he's not coming up with the right answer.. Kirk says...Give it your best guess. That's about the best authors can do, especially after the playtest(s)... YMMV Lynn
dkay807 04-23-08, 06:10 PM	I've found playtests to be INSANELY important, even though they get skipped far too often. In one of the modules I wrote, I had my playtest table help me design a particular encounter. Furthermore, I find it helpful to have my playtesters review the module after the playtest and respond with feedback - it ends up being far more valuable than the feedback and editing I receive from the meta-rep or Circle member - primarily because my playtesters are able to provide feedback on the mod after having played it and experienced not only the flow of the mod, but my intentions behind the encounters.
Howie23 04-24-08, 01:29 AM	I've found playtests to be INSANELY important, even though they get skipped far too often. I'll toss in an observation, mainly for the LFR admins at this point, I guess. Playtests are not the same thing as launches, and should never be ran by the author. There is a great deal of good that comes out creating a history of play from the author to the the early judges, to the later judges, to the players. However, the playtest is not the place to make that connection. When an author is the DM for a playtest, there is a tendency to self-correct the problems in the design and or prose. Playtests should always be judged by someone else than the author. The author may observe, fine, but never DM and thus contaminate the pool. David --source: author who poorly playtested his own mod
Surgebuster 04-24-08, 02:36 AM	I'll toss in an observation, mainly for the LFR admins at this point, I guess. Playtests are not the same thing as launches, and should never be ran by the author. There is a great deal of good that comes out creating a history of play from the author to the the early judges, to the later judges, to the players. However, the playtest is not the place to make that connection. When an author is the DM for a playtest, there is a tendency to self-correct the problems in the design and or prose. Playtests should always be judged by someone else than the author. The author may observe, fine, but never DM and thus contaminate the pool. David --source: author who poorly playtested his own mod Having had the same experience running my own playtest, I certainly agree with you David. What I can assure you is that the process by which all LFR adventures, from concept to release and everything in between, is much more standardised, scrutinised and supersized in comparison with LG. As the designers have stated, encounter design is more user-friendly in 4th edition, so all things considered, any inherent problems with an adventure will be ironed out before release (as much as is humanly possible). :) Joe Fitzgerald Event Manager Dragon Coast
Madfox11 04-24-08, 03:29 AM	There are benefits to playtests run by the author as well, so the best playtests are actually run by the author as well as others.
Howie23 04-24-08, 09:52 AM	There are benefits to playtests run by the author as well, so the best playtests are actually run by the author as well as others. What benefit do you see for the author running the playtest that can not be achieved by the author observing the playtest? David
kinevon 04-24-08, 09:58 AM	What benefit do you see for the author running the playtest that can not be achieved by the author observing the playtest? David Actually, IMO, it is only beneficial if there is one of the playtest judges watching and taking notes of how the author adapts the adventure on the fly, so that it can be added in correctly. The original author might not even realize some of the adjustments he makes when running...
TetsujinOni 04-24-08, 03:40 PM	I'll toss in an observation, mainly for the LFR admins at this point, I guess. Playtests are not the same thing as launches, and should never be ran by the author. There is a great deal of good that comes out creating a history of play from the author to the the early judges, to the later judges, to the players. Coming from a software developer's standpoint, there is value to both. An author-run playtest is a functional test - 'does this work the way I intended when I'm controlling the DM variables'. A playtest run by someone else provides both functional testing, and acceptance testing of 'does this work when another person is DMing it'. The first can be a talk-through without roleplaying, and gaming the fights for viability, to sanity-check the combat encounters. The latter should always be full up tables of the adventure. You can manage with one or the other, but the best testing will include both.
dkay807 04-24-08, 04:45 PM	Coming from a software developer's standpoint, there is value to both. An author-run playtest is a functional test - 'does this work the way I intended when I'm controlling the DM variables'. A playtest run by someone else provides both functional testing, and acceptance testing of 'does this work when another person is DMing it'. The first can be a talk-through without roleplaying, and gaming the fights for viability, to sanity-check the combat encounters. The latter should always be full up tables of the adventure. You can manage with one or the other, but the best testing will include both. Can we not bring QA and product acceptance references into D&D please? Thanks... I'm all done with that for a long, long time. However, you're right. That's why it's done in the same manner in nearly every software development delivery approach. Developers (Mod Writer) unit test the product, and then the end users test it (the notion of having someone else judge the mod you wrote as a playtest). Sadly, there's rarely enough time to do both in the short LG mod writing lifecycle. Ideally, I would run an initial playtest, collect feedback, then get one of my playtesters to read the mod, prep it, and judge it for another playtest group, then collect feedback again. Unfortunately, there's rarely enough time to do that. I'll be happy if every module author gets at least one playtest in!
smerwin29 04-24-08, 06:15 PM	In addition to the software testing analogy, there is also the creative process that writers might thrive within: some writers might come up with better ideas from a playtest if they are engaged as a participant, whereas some might work better being able to observe and not engage in the processes of the game. With the module submission and development process we will be working under for LFR, there should be enough time for multiple playtests. Shawn
dkay807 04-24-08, 07:49 PM	In addition to the software testing analogy, there is also the creative process that writers might thrive within: some writers might come up with better ideas from a playtest if they are engaged as a participant, whereas some might work better being able to observe and not engage in the processes of the game. With the module submission and development process we will be working under for LFR, there should be enough time for multiple playtests. Shawn That's very encouraging. Thanks for the info, Shawn! I don't want to sound like a cynic, but I truly hope that the level of discipline doesn't break down over time. I can't wait to see some of the module content that gets put out!
solbergb 04-25-08, 02:40 PM	It's entirely possible. LFR is a lot less ambitious with content than LG was. If you add up all the regionals, metaregionals, core stuff, adaptables, minimissions and interactives across the campaign you reach a number much larger than the modules proposed under the new system. The idea is that with some of the regional restrictions relaxed, the individual gamer will still have plenty to play in the new system. We'll see how that plays out. But with less overall content, if they can retain most of the authors, and make better use of the entire globe as author pool (if an area is dense in authors, it can feed more regions etc), that should leave more time per author to produce a given module.
Pulpit 05-11-08, 12:56 PM	There are benefits to playtests run by the author as well, so the best playtests are actually run by the author as well as others. Gonna have to disagree here. There are several good reasons to not have a writer test thier own work. 1. Distance. As writers, sometimes we get to close to our work. It makes sense in our head, but it may not on paper. And as writers, because we are close to the work, we may not be able to see that it isn't working. Letting others test it will let those things become more apparent. 2. Objectivity. This goes hand in hand with the other. Having someone else test it, who isn't invested in it, will give a clearer view of what's good or bad in a mod. 3. Letting other people besides the mod writer test it resemebles what is going to happen in the real world, when DM's of all sorts are going to get the mod. Letting someone else run it will give an inkling as to how much sense text is making, mechanics working, etc.
smerwin29 05-11-08, 01:10 PM	Gonna have to disagree here. There are several good reasons to not have a writer test thier own work. 1. Distance. As writers, sometimes we get to close to our work. It makes sense in our head, but it may not on paper. And as writers, because we are close to the work, we may not be able to see that it isn't working. Letting others test it will let those things become more apparent. 2. Objectivity. This goes hand in hand with the other. Having someone else test it, who isn't invested in it, will give a clearer view of what's good or bad in a mod. 3. Letting other people besides the mod writer test it resemebles what is going to happen in the real world, when DM's of all sorts are going to get the mod. Letting someone else run it will give an inkling as to how much sense text is making, mechanics working, etc. No one is arguing with this. What we are trying to say is that there may be some benefits for an adventure writer ALSO running a playtest. I agree that getting playtest feedback from people outside the writing process is extremely valuable, and it certainly can be more valuable. Shawn
Pulpit 05-11-08, 01:52 PM	No one is arguing with this. What we are trying to say is that there may be some benefits for an adventure writer ALSO running a playtest. I agree that getting playtest feedback from people outside the writing process is extremely valuable, and it certainly can be more valuable. Shawn I think the last part of your statement there is 100% correct. I wasn't saying that having the writer involved was completely bad either, it's just the benefits of not having them run thier own game far outway the other.
solbergb 05-13-08, 02:55 PM	Speaking as a playtester. I like the author to run the first playtest. Then the playtesters get to see his vision of the module, regardless of what is written down. Then the playtesters get the draft copy. And see the difference between what is there and what he ran. Then they give feedback, which presumably gets the two things closer. There is also a lot of statblock erratta and math checking that goes on in this step, if the adventure is far enough along to have detailed statblocks. The playtesters then, hopefully run the mods as slot zeros for the premier. Often the module is still in final review cycle and issues that come up during those games can be corrected before the mod is released. It is rare that you get a cycle long enough to have an extra round of playtests run not by author that are not premiere zeros. The problem is that often the module isn't in a finished enough form to actually have a 3rd party run it for a lot of its lifecycle. I think though that if you toss the module over the wall and have the only playtests done by people who only have the draft version to work with, you'll not get the right kind of feedback to correct it. They'll assume that what was written was actually intended, and not catch all those gaps between the author's vision and what he actually wrote down.
TetsujinOni 05-13-08, 05:16 PM	Speaking as a playtester. I like the author to run the first playtest. Then the playtesters get to see his vision of the module, regardless of what is written down. Then the playtesters get the draft copy. And see the difference between what is there and what he ran. Then they give feedback, which presumably gets the two things closer. There is also a lot of statblock erratta and math checking that goes on in this step, if the adventure is far enough along to have detailed statblocks. The playtesters then, hopefully run the mods as slot zeros for the premier. Often the module is still in final review cycle and issues that come up during those games can be corrected before the mod is released. It is rare that you get a cycle long enough to have an extra round of playtests run not by author that are not premiere zeros. The problem is that often the module isn't in a finished enough form to actually have a 3rd party run it for a lot of its lifecycle. I think though that if you toss the module over the wall and have the only playtests done by people who only have the draft version to work with, you'll not get the right kind of feedback to correct it. They'll assume that what was written was actually intended, and not catch all those gaps between the author's vision and what he actually wrote down. I've playtested a few regional and metaregionals, and this matches the pattern of timeframe and feedback viability that I've seen; one was run by Triad without the author around, a couple were run by the authors with "hmm, that doesn't work right... *scratch of pen*" moments as they made how-to-fix notes. I think the testing experiences have helped now that I'm trying to finish writing my first non-mini-interactive adventure... desperately late, as is apparently traditional.
Ophiskia 05-19-08, 08:47 AM	To return briefly to the topic of constructive criticism after the playtesting phase is over, it does sometimes give results - there was a revised version of a Regional Introductory scenario released after I was vocal in my criticism of it on the Regional email list and was asked by the author & Triad for detailed feedback, for example... (Brand new PCs against four Fighters with full plate and heavy shields, when it's potentially the party's third fight without a night's rest? Not a good introduction for new players.) A few years ago I also had a brief few weeks of enthusiasm for writing unofficial scenario errata documents and putting them in the files of the LGDMs Yahoo! Group, but that quickly faltered due to lack of time and a poor perceived effort/reward ratio. The main problem with post-playtest feedback is that where players are able to obtain the author's contact details, as Shawn mentioned it can be very hard for those receiving the feedback to sort the wheat from the chaff.