Post/Author/DateTime	Post
rockondon 12-29-06, 04:52 PM	Lets face it, investigative mods can be a pain in the ass. Everybody I play with complains about them (especially me ;)) so I figured maybe we could come up with ideas that might aid the authors who write them and the GMs that run them. Plus I'd really like to see a good rant about past experiences but lets try to keep it constructive rant-ism. I often see these mods played out like this: one guy has the good skills so he is the one playing, the rest of the party aren't involved so they blab out-of-game about blah blah blah until the guy with knowledge: CSI breaks the case and they get the AR's. But then the CSI guy gets stumped and now nobody knows what to do. They spend 2 hours revisiting every location and re-interrogating every witness. Out of frustration the GM either takes the party by the hand and forces them onto the next plot hook or hands them ARs filled with zeroes and large diagonal slashes. Everyone checks who wrote the mod so they know where to focus their ire. How do we prevent this? Don't hinge plot hooks on DC 99 spot checks or knowledge: basketweaving. Don't hinge plot hooks on some obscure question or action that is obvious in the author's mind, but to many other people its wtf would I ask/do that for? If you write it, poll your buddies or something to make sure you demand reasonable actions/questions to get the plot hook. Try to include everybody, not just the CSI guy. Perhaps the dwarf merchant doesn't want to talk to the charming elven bard diplomat in the party. Perhaps the soldier won't reveal anything until after a non-lethal bout with the fighter in the party. Perhaps an arcane contest, or a singing one, or divine one, or a game of knucklebones, or chess, etc is in order before info is learned. GMs should know the story and each NPC really well - enough to summarize things and put things in his own words to save time. He should encourage people to write stuff down. We bombed one mod because we had to go to location A at night. We went there during the day, found nothing, then never went back. Don't write encounters with such inflexible circumstances. Some mods I've had intentionally run the PCs into a dead end, and then when they sleep or go back to their inn they get an encounter. This makes PCs think they missed something so they waste hours trying to find something that doesn't exist before they go back to their inn. A pre-planned NPC is nice for when the PC's are stuck - such as a lowly thief that fails his pickpocket roll and will point the pc's in the right direction if they agree not to turn him into the authorities. I would probably only use something like this if the PCs were victims of bad dice rolls or similar, and probably wouldn't use it if they were doing poor investigating. This idea might be against the "spirit" of an investigative mod but...I'm comfortable with that ;) What do you guys think?
budleiser 12-29-06, 05:00 PM	Haha my post inspired someone.
Lomiat 12-29-06, 05:19 PM	I think perhaps if you're so bitter about investigative mods, you could opt to avoid them. As much as you feel they're insufferable, other people relish the opportunity to explore other aspects of their characters beside the "bash down the door and charge the opponents" variety. Additionally, most of your complaints address not only how such modules are written, but the manner in which the DM approaches the adventure. A good and prepared DM will come to the table with not only the module in hand, but a good understanding of the larger story. His/her understanding of the larger story allows your DM to adapt things as necessary. Sometimes there won't be any clues for your party to find at location X during the day because certain events don't happen until the evening; a prepared DM will know if this is the case or if the night time trigger is just something the author wrote without due reason. As far as your complaint goes that one person does all the roleplaying while the others twiddle their thumbs and talk out of game... That's the inevitable reality of every moment of LG (unless we're talking about chaotic, unproductive moments where 5 people talk at once). Typically, a DM can only resolve one PC's actions at a time and can really dedicate his/her attention to one player at a time. It doesn't mean, however, that your PC has to let the other PC do everything. Skills count for a lot, but in most investigative mods, roleplaying opportunities abound. PC and NPC interaction can provide some entertaining moments.
catsclaw 12-29-06, 05:46 PM	Sometimes there won't be any clues for your party to find at location X during the day because certain events don't happen until the evening; a prepared DM will know if this is the case or if the night time trigger is just something the author wrote without due reason.It's important for mod authors to include clues for when players outpace the story. If they players realize location X is important, but don't know the critical event at X hasn't happened yet, there needs to be a way to prompt them to return *after* the event. A good DM will be able to add that in on the fly, but given the number of bad DMs (and good DMs pressganged into running a mod at the last minute) that stuff needs to be explicit in the mod. I'd also like to see an investigative mod where Speak with Dead is worth a damn. I'm sick of stumbling upon all these corpses with their lower jaws ripped off.
rockondon 12-29-06, 05:50 PM	I'd also like to see an investigative mod where Speak with Dead is worth a damn. I'm sick of stumbling upon all these corpses with their lower jaws ripped off. that's where sign language with dead comes in real handy ;)
jhorred 12-29-06, 05:55 PM	I've actually seen/ran mods where speak with dead has been usuable and half assumed by the mod.
jhorred 12-29-06, 05:56 PM	---oops---
jhorred 12-29-06, 06:02 PM	---oops again---
Japangirl 12-29-06, 06:06 PM	It's important for mod authors to include clues for when players outpace the story. If they players realize location X is important, but don't know the critical event at X hasn't happened yet, there needs to be a way to prompt them to return *after* the event. A good DM will be able to add that in on the fly, but given the number of bad DMs (and good DMs pressganged into running a mod at the last minute) that stuff needs to be explicit in the mod. I'd also like to see an investigative mod where Speak with Dead is worth a damn. I'm sick of stumbling upon all these corpses with their lower jaws ripped off. Only lower jaws? Wow, your murderers suck at this game. I never leave a corpse with a head on it . . . oh wait, did I just admit to murder? Umm, I'll be leaving now . . .
jhorred 12-29-06, 06:11 PM	taking the lower jaw makes sense if the perpetrator has the requisite knowledge of the speak with dead spell, but not all of them do....
Simpi 12-29-06, 06:59 PM	Some mods I've had intentionally run the PCs into a dead end, and then when they sleep or go back to their inn they get an encounter. This makes PCs think they missed something so they waste hours trying to find something that doesn't exist before they go back to their inn. I wrote an investigative module and when running it once, a party member noted that investigative module was coming up and said "let's not bother investigating anything. Investigative mods always fast forward you if you go to sleep." Others quickly agreed on this and so they did. You would not belive the amount of screaming that ensued when I handed them blank ARs since unlike what usually happens, there was a deadline in the module and the all the available clues were already out, without waiting a "mysterious attacker in the night" to deliver them. Of course they said they would not have gone to sleep if they had known that but since their first reaction was outright arrogance towards the module, they bloody well deserved it. Btw, this was also a module where roleplaying experience was tied to whether or not PCs managed to complete it without a fight or with just one fight. Catsclaw: Any murderer who has a least bit sense in what he is doing knows that removing the jaw or pouring some acid to deceased persons mouth prevents them talking. If they have change to do so, why wouldn't they? Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad
Samwise 12-29-06, 07:25 PM	I see many investigative adventures played out like this: Half the players refuse to accept the concept of a "role-playing game" and simply demand the next encounter occur after they have walked to another location and clicked on the appropriate NPC. Half of the rest of the players refuse to engage the NPCs in a manner that would get someone to cooperate because of how they want to role-play. Half of the rest throw up their hands and refuse to even try to engage the NPCs because they don't have the "right" skills, and the writers suck, and the campaign staff are a bunch of morons for approving investigative adventures that "everybody" hates, and . . . That leaves a couple of people here and there to not only play these adventures, but too often solve them when someone else at the table is making the task harder than it has to be. So now let's look at actual problems in investigative adventure design, over and above not being able to hear the DM because some other players decide that because they aren't getting to hack anything at the moment nobody else needs to get to do anything: Relying on specific skills at super-maxed out potential This is a reasonable complaint. So reasonable that I mentioned it to Creighton last year and he had it added to the LG Writer's Guildelines. That doesn't mean DC 10-20 skill checks still won't appear, but it doesn mean the utterly obscure check or the one dependant on a feat should be gone. Things only obvious to the author A nice concept, but . . . how exactly is the author or reviewer supposed to know what any particular group of six people won't get? I've seen adventures with absurdly obvious clues that go right past people, usually because they try overthinking the situation. And I've sat there and been baffled by absurdly simple situations. Such a criteria is simply too subjective to have any real meaning. Some times actions will be needed that seem obvious on the face of it, but with a particular group are effectively impossible to think of. It happens. A good DM will account for it. An encounter for everyone Another nice concept, but what if that "everyone" isn't present at a particular table? Yeah, the dwarf only talks to another dwarf but . . . sorry, no dwarf at this table. Non-lethal combat? Yeah, right! So now the adventure can't be finished because somebody sucked up some die rolls or the DM scored a lucky crit. No, this is as bad as an investigation that requires a face of knowledge monkey to get past. Timed encounters These have just as much potential to run both ways. I've seen adventures hopelessly short-circuited because the PCs just have to go and figure everything out three encounters ahead of time, either by lucky roll, good play, or just plain intuition. Any adventure that isn't simply a series of static slugfests is going to face the problem of dealing with unfolding circumstances and consequences. Refusing to accept this and be willing to repeat some tasks is a fault of the players just as refusing to account for short circuiting of the plot is a fault of the author. Any good adventure requires the players to make an effort as much as the author to make it "winable" and the DM to carry it off. If you don't at least make an effort to work within the plot, then it really doesn't matter if it is an investigative adventure or pure dungeon crawl, you will never succeed.
LGMoses 12-29-06, 09:03 PM	I see many investigative adventures played out like this: Half the players refuse to accept the concept of a "role-playing game" and simply demand the next encounter occur after they have walked to another location and clicked on the appropriate NPC. Half of the rest of the players refuse to engage the NPCs in a manner that would get someone to cooperate because of how they want to role-play. Half of the rest throw up their hands and refuse to even try to engage the NPCs because they don't have the "right" skills, and the writers suck, and the campaign staff are a bunch of morons for approving investigative adventures that "everybody" hates, and . . . That leaves a couple of people here and there to not only play these adventures, but too often solve them when someone else at the table is making the task harder than it has to be. So now let's look at actual problems in investigative adventure design, over and above not being able to hear the DM because some other players decide that because they aren't getting to hack anything at the moment nobody else needs to get to do anything: Relying on specific skills at super-maxed out potential This is a reasonable complaint. So reasonable that I mentioned it to Creighton last year and he had it added to the LG Writer's Guildelines. That doesn't mean DC 10-20 skill checks still won't appear, but it doesn mean the utterly obscure check or the one dependant on a feat should be gone. Things only obvious to the author A nice concept, but . . . how exactly is the author or reviewer supposed to know what any particular group of six people won't get? I've seen adventures with absurdly obvious clues that go right past people, usually because they try overthinking the situation. And I've sat there and been baffled by absurdly simple situations. Such a criteria is simply too subjective to have any real meaning. Some times actions will be needed that seem obvious on the face of it, but with a particular group are effectively impossible to think of. It happens. A good DM will account for it. An encounter for everyone Another nice concept, but what if that "everyone" isn't present at a particular table? Yeah, the dwarf only talks to another dwarf but . . . sorry, no dwarf at this table. Non-lethal combat? Yeah, right! So now the adventure can't be finished because somebody sucked up some die rolls or the DM scored a lucky crit. No, this is as bad as an investigation that requires a face of knowledge monkey to get past. Timed encounters These have just as much potential to run both ways. I've seen adventures hopelessly short-circuited because the PCs just have to go and figure everything out three encounters ahead of time, either by lucky roll, good play, or just plain intuition. Any adventure that isn't simply a series of static slugfests is going to face the problem of dealing with unfolding circumstances and consequences. Refusing to accept this and be willing to repeat some tasks is a fault of the players just as refusing to account for short circuiting of the plot is a fault of the author. Any good adventure requires the players to make an effort as much as the author to make it "winable" and the DM to carry it off. If you don't at least make an effort to work within the plot, then it really doesn't matter if it is an investigative adventure or pure dungeon crawl, you will never succeed. Everyone listen to Samwise, he is actually saying something constructive that makes sense. I agree with everything he has to say. Go Samwise! :cheer:
LGMoses 12-29-06, 09:09 PM	I often see these mods played out like this: one guy has the good skills so he is the one playing, the rest of the party aren't involved so they blab out-of-game about blah blah blah until the guy with knowledge: CSI breaks the case and they get the AR's. But then the CSI guy gets stumped and now nobody knows what to do. They spend 2 hours revisiting every location and re-interrogating every witness. Out of frustration the GM either takes the party by the hand and forces them onto the next plot hook or hands them ARs filled with zeroes and large diagonal slashes. Everyone checks who wrote the mod so they know where to focus their ire. From the topic name it seems like you're trying to do something constructive but I can't agree with this paragraph at all. I can't agree with a lot of what y u said but this is the most. These mods are rewarding to people who have made characters where they didn't suck everything out of charisma and intelligence to get 18 str. Like the above guy, the DM can only pay attention to one person at a time with any real quality. If you want to enjoy these types of mods it seems you'll need a character who hasn't got all of his stats drained so he can min/max his fighting abilities.
Mommy was an Orc 12-29-06, 11:01 PM	Catsclaw: Any murderer who has a least bit sense in what he is doing knows that removing the jaw or pouring some acid to deceased persons mouth prevents them talking. If they have change to do so, why wouldn't they? You'd think, but...it really doesn't make sense. The really prepared murderer is going to want people to speak with dead. Because the information that jaw will give will either be useless or false. It also calls attention to the murder - unless all murders in the city end up with jawless bodies, the murderer has gone to the trouble of desecrating the body in an unusual manner. It implies that the victim knew the murderer somehow, because why else would the murderer have done that? And that the murderer had a lot of extra time where he wasn't worried about witnesses, but not enough extra time to simply get rid of the body/head altogether. When I see a jawless body, my credulity usually drops.
Mommy was an Orc 12-29-06, 11:09 PM	I think one of the things that generally goes wrong in Investigative mods is that the players and characters don't get rewarded for figuring things out(and this applies to traps often as well) If the players figure out a devious plot, there should be appropriate rewards(maybe a surprise round against the BBEG's henchmen) that allows them to conserve resources or get better access, or perhaps gain half the treasure for a mod...
budleiser 12-30-06, 01:31 AM	I think one of the things that generally goes wrong in Investigative mods is that the players and characters don't get rewarded for figuring things out(and this applies to traps often as well) If the players figure out a devious plot, there should be appropriate rewards(maybe a surprise round against the BBEG's henchmen) that allows them to conserve resources or get better access, or perhaps gain half the treasure for a mod... If all we get for solving the mystery is a surprise round... ill just goto sleep and wait for the mug plot hook. ;) I think this is a great idea though, where regardless of solving anything the mod finishes with combats and such. But if you DID solve it you get a favor.
Simpi 12-30-06, 03:17 AM	I think this is a great idea though, where regardless of solving anything the mod finishes with combats and such. But if you DID solve it you get a favor. Not necessarily. For example, my mentioned module can easily be finished without a fight if PCs use some smarts, such as by arranging the plot item to be transferred in other place which makes it impossible for opposing party to interfere. Heck, they can even "call the police" (local Hextrorite guards) if they find out the location of the opposing party who then deal with them (but of course take all their gear) and PCs still get full exp for it. Even better, they could side with the opposing party which makes retrieving the plot item a childs play or they can get the plot item and then betray their client and simply hand it over to third faction. In the end PCs could not do any fights at all but end up with one of the three different favors, best one perhaps being with the evil faction. (Scarlet Brotherhood members doing it actually get access to heroic destiny feat since I think PCs who take this kind of burden for themselves should be rewarded). Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad
rockondon 12-30-06, 05:48 AM	I just played a somewhat investigative mod tonight that was awesome. The mystery was interesting, the evidence made sense, and best of all it had a riddle. Riddles are great - they engage all the players. The writer of this one was exceptional in that he anticipated the PCs not being able to guess the riddle (which we couldn't) and wrote in subtle clues to help us. It was perfect. I think that is a great example of what to include in a module. If there is one key plot hook to guide the players, its nice to have more than one way of discovering that plot hook. I find that authors do this a lot which is great, but its not always the case. And Samwise I agree about some parties missing obvious clues. Last week our mod involved us interrogating 5 people. The key question was that we were supposed to ask person B what their opinion was of person D. That question might have been obvious to some, but we never considered it. We were focused on the npc's observations, not their opinions. The stuff I mentioned about the dwarf prefering not to talk to the elf and the soldier wanting a fist-fight were just arbitrary examples. I wouldn't write them as dead ends because those are what I hate - the dwarf would have talked to the elf if it was an all-elf party (although he'd grumble about it of course), and the soldier would have talked regardless - he just wanted a little scrap first. And as for not enough fighting - who cares. Its being stuck in a dead end despite our efforts that's irksome, not the lack of encounters. Investigative mods usually have about as many encounters as other mods anyway. Everyone listen to Samwise, he is actually saying something constructive that makes sense. I agree with everything he has to say. Go Samwise! :cheer: geezus...do you do his laundry too?
budleiser 12-30-06, 08:21 AM	Investigative mods usually have about as many encounters as other mods anyway. I disagree they usually have less. But that can be a good thing (See my thread "mods are to easy") because the author can ramp up the difficulty on these fights, because theres fewer of them.
Bogjob 12-30-06, 09:25 AM	I enjoy investigative mods as it means my rounded character actually gets to roleplay ! I have seen ridiculous skill checks in mods though where even a maxed PC would have difficulty rolling the difficulty. Remember though good roleplaying means your DM can give you circumstance bonuses etc. The only real problem I have with them is sometimes playing them in a Con environment is well nigh impossible in the 4 hr time slot. Luckily we have roughly 3 full parties of home gamers here that I game with so usually we leave them until we are at someones house as our simple hack and slash type mods have run for 6-7 hrs let alone the investigative ones :)
UMiskatonic 12-30-06, 11:29 AM	Most of your complaints have a similar solution. Investigative mods need to be non-linear. The usual problem is that the writer forces you to go a-b-c-d-e-f. If you can't find b, then you are forced to wander around looking for the rest of the mod. What we need more of, is a-(b or c)-(d or e)- f. This allows you to complete the adventure without finding every last clue. It also forces you to work off of partial information, which enjoy because I find it realistic. So, if bardic knowledge will get you the answer, maybe someone in town knows where a retired bard can be found. You can do some tracking, or maybe a tracker can be hired if you do him a favor. And the idea of a bonus encounter (if the PCs are stuck, use this) is a great idea. More of that, please.
Swiftbrook 12-30-06, 01:00 PM	Some quick problems with investigative mods that I've seen: 1) Speak with dead is required. 2) Some particular skill is required. When something like a feat, skill or spell is a required component of a mod it can really take the enjoyment out of the mod. Required is a bit strong. What I mean is that the mod can be done without the feat, skill or spell but it is much more difficult. Generally only one character will have the feat, skill or spell, so the mod begins to focus on that one character. Trying to keep the rest of the party having fun becomes more difficult. When I play and I have center stage, I try not to keep it for a long time. The short time that I have it though, I make the most of :) . That said, characters that shine in investigative mods might just be a dim support character in a hack and slash. Invenigative mods are very much needed to keep a good game balance. What I would like to see, which is more difficult for the author, is a mod that can be solved in a variety of ways. -Swiftbrook
Simpi 12-30-06, 01:24 PM	Some quick problems with investigative mods that I've seen: 1) Speak with dead is required. 2) Some particular skill is required. Typically investigative modules require couple of brain cells and rubbing them together. I have seen people complain about the ridde in "Riddle of the Dust" and I fail to see what was so hard about (in GenCon UK it delayed us for about 2 minutes) and having just played "Catching Breath", I wonder what's the big deal with other messages. Then again, I regularly see players struggling with the most basic of puzzles which are even in current cores and I really have to wonder how they don't get it, especially if me and Nitessine solved it in five minutes when we played it online. Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad
Morgen 12-30-06, 01:44 PM	I've very rarely ever seen a skill check being required in any mod, even an investigative mod. I've seen those skill checks be very highly useful in getting quick information or noticing just the right set of details but honestly an investigative mod is really meant to challenge the players more then the characters. You guys just have to figure them out. I've played in so many mods where we've had like 3 people playing the game and the other 4 people at the table just sitting there waiting for combat. Your characters with 8 int aren't retards, they're at worst a little slow but entirely capable of rational thoughts. It's a chance to role-play! :P Some of the best fun we've had in investigative mods we've had were with a barbarian who was bright but didn't have a terribly good grip of common. An awesome character, hehe. Lately we'll blow like 20 minutes before a mod just RPing out the whole meeting. Our characters have things to talk about after all and stories to tell.
Lupo 12-30-06, 02:00 PM	there seem to be a certain fraction of players that see LG as combat centered arms race for maxed munchkiness :D and when they face anything that requires the use of more than two brain cells they get the fits and complain about boring modules ;) and start to scream foul play when they can't "complete" a module some authors spoon feed this fraction by writing combat encounters that require high degrees of munchkiness or "pseudo-investigative" modules, where the investigative part is waiting for the evidence to pop out of the blue. when a not optimal maxed cheesed party has to bail out a certain module due to a combat encounter they often have the additional problem of dead characters. parties that have to bail out due to an unsolvable riddle only loose some "virtual" xp, gp and fancy items. no deaths, no unrecoverable corpses. i would love to see more "good" investigative modules ciao martin m.
Samwise 12-30-06, 06:44 PM	Varied comments: Writing a non-linear adventure is absurdly more difficult than writing a linear adventure. Not only do you have to account for players doing things in a random order, you have to account for them doing random things. And pretty much by definition you will never account for all those random acts. In general, a non-linear adventure can expect to take up twice the text of a linear adventure, and have three times as many potential plot destruct points when a group does something unusual. So while they are great in theory, only the absolutely best of writers can even begin to attempt one, and in most cases it is better to not even bother. Including any kind of combat situation, even a non-lethal one, is begging to have multiple parties blow the adventure just because they won't control themselves against the town blowhard. (Except in Ket of course, where they'd only get confused if they had to fight to the death. :P ) Even a verbally aggressive or generally obnoxious NPC is going to be a prime friction point for derailing an adventure. Too many players consider any NPC who doesn't fawn over their existence to be the primary indicator of who is the villain they need to kill to succeed. Related is adventures with NPC "triggers." These have not one, but two friction points. Not only must the players meet some requirement, the DM must decide they meet the requirement. If the DM wants to have the NPC be generally ornery, great. But specifically ornery is again asking for trouble. For specific skills, feats, and spells, I will say again that I took note of this, and made a specific point of having a request that any task that requires such have an alternative resolution possible included in the current writers' guidelines. So hopefully, you will see significantly less of those, eventually dropping to none. I agree, nothing sucks worse than having an adventure you can't complete without someone with the Track feat or who can make APL +10 skill checks. However, this doesn't mean requiring skills is bad. A DC 15 Knowledge check is not outrageous, even at APL 2. It does however require that players create characters that "waste" skill points on all those "useless" skills. My wizard has maxed out Decipher Script just so I don't have to rely on a Comprehend Languages spell (which I don't happen to know anyway) when I encounter some unusual language. And maybe the cleric who is a "face" should burn some skills on languages in case he doesn't want to memorize tongues all the time. Even a fighter can throw away some cross-class skill points on various skills he doesn't otherwise use, just for the heck of it. Is a maxed out swim skill that critical you can't burn some ranks in Profession (basketweaving), just for when some evil author makes it the cornerstone of an adventure?
Mommy was an Orc 12-30-06, 07:47 PM	Writing a non-linear adventure is absurdly more difficult than writing a linear adventure. Not only do you have to account for players doing things in a random order, you have to account for them doing random things. And pretty much by definition you will never account for all those random acts. In general, a non-linear adventure can expect to take up twice the text of a linear adventure, and have three times as many potential plot destruct points when a group does something unusual. So while they are great in theory, only the absolutely best of writers can even begin to attempt one, and in most cases it is better to not even bother. It doesn't have to be that way. He's not referring to a completely non-linear adventure. You can make an adventure that appears to be non-linear, but in actuality has relatively limited choices. No matter how many people you talk to in the town, everyone says to go to talk with one of three sets of people. Once you talk with those three sets of people, they lead you to X. X then leads to say 3 options, all of which eventually end up at Y for the climatic fight. A lot of mods, you have to talk to the specifically correct person in order to go forward, and if you don't, you get stuck. Yes, players can get off track, but I think most investigative mods should have an encounter specifically labeled: "If you, the DM, think the players are getting really off track, introduce the NPC Easenitob Vious to get them to X. If they still are determined not to go anywhere, let 'em wander."
rockondon 12-30-06, 08:26 PM	I think that specific skills and feats can enrich a module so long as they aren't a must-have to complete the adventure. If someone takes a relatively oddball skill or feat its great to reward them by making that feat useful in a mod - such as opening up a certain access or favor or providing the PCs with something that will make the final encounter easier or safer. If the party has to get to location X and doesn't have the track feat, they should still be able to get there but it will take them longer and because of that things will be a little harder on them. Knowledge: basketweaving won't be a mandatory skill but if a PC has at least one rank in it the PCs will have a certain insight that gives them +2 to hit the wicker-basket golem (so to speak). If the PC has speak with dead, the party can learn what killed that npc and they can prepare for it. If nobody has speak with dead, they'll end up fighting monster X without any foreknowledge of what it is. /arbitrary examples Linear adventures can be made to appear non-linear to the players. Like mommy was saying, there can be three different ways to alert the PCs to go to person A or location X. Giving the PCs the illusion of free will is just as good as giving them free will - they probably won't know the difference and their play experience will be enriched.
Samwise 12-30-06, 08:27 PM	It doesn't have to be that way. He's not referring to a completely non-linear adventure. You can make an adventure that appears to be non-linear, but in actuality has relatively limited choices. No matter how many people you talk to in the town, everyone says to go to talk with one of three sets of people. Once you talk with those three sets of people, they lead you to X. X then leads to say 3 options, all of which eventually end up at Y for the climatic fight. A lot of mods, you have to talk to the specifically correct person in order to go forward, and if you don't, you get stuck. Yes, that is possible. It can still be more difficult if the people have "cumulative" information and the PCs refuse to go back and talk to someone again, or the DM decides they can't.
LGMoses 12-30-06, 10:59 PM	geezus...do you do his laundry too? no, i was just glad to see an example of common sense on this forum. I hadn't seen one in a while.
catsclaw 01-02-07, 12:26 PM	Catsclaw: Any murderer who has a least bit sense in what he is doing knows that removing the jaw or pouring some acid to deceased persons mouth prevents them talking. If they have change to do so, why wouldn' they?Murderers in the real world know by dipping the tips of their victims fingers in acid they can prevent their victims from being identified. And yet, they rarely do. I don't mind the occasional investigative mod having the jaw torn off, as long as it makes logical sense -- so we (the players) can conclude "this person must have some understanding of magic, and is concerned with being identified". More often, it's just a sloppy mod author who doesn't want to bother with figuring out what the victim would logically remember from the murder, and how to frame it so it doesn't ruin the mod. Of course, the last investigative mod I judged solved the problem by simply not mentioning the speak with dead spell in the mod -- no reason the victims couldn't identify their assailant, no reason speak with dead shouldn't have worked, running at a high enough APL that speak with dead could easily have been available to the PCs. Luckily for me, no one did.
budleiser 01-02-07, 01:08 PM	Murderers in the real world know by dipping the tips of their victims fingers in acid they can prevent their victims from being identified. And yet, they rarely do. Do'h. That is a good idea thanks. Which acid do you recommend, do I just open a car battery?
Lupo 01-02-07, 02:49 PM	Do'h. That is a good idea thanks. Which acid do you recommend, do I just open a car battery? where the heck have you found a car battery on an AR??? i would like one, too :P images from the wonderful movie "army of darkness" materializing in the back of my head :D ciao martin m. ps: just an anachronism, i the times of DNA analysis in minutes and full body 3D x-ray scans fingerprints are somehow quaint :P
Madfox11 01-03-07, 05:28 AM	The CSI syndrome... so fun when players start using modern day RL knowledge in a game where people have not even heard of things such as bacteria and microscopes ;) I always find it very funny when an adventure mention that PCs can recognize dried blood or hairs as belonging to a pig with a simple Heal check even though in RL doing so is not always that easy requiring lab equipment at the very least (which in a Fantasy setting would be the same as a craft (alchemy) check).
Lupo 01-03-07, 05:54 AM	The CSI syndrome... so fun when players start using modern day RL knowledge in a game where people have not even heard of things such as bacteria and microscopes ;) I always find it very funny when an adventure mention that PCs can recognize dried blood or hairs as belonging to a pig with a simple Heal check even though in RL doing so is not always that easy requiring lab equipment at the very least (which in a Fantasy setting would be the same as a craft (alchemy) check). hm, relatively fresh blood is somehow easier, if your nose is good enough ;) (you don't need to wildshape into a wolf to distinguish oxen, chicken and human blood, but most people from civilized areas lack the necessary experience :D). for the hairs, some are easy to determine when enough material is available, and again your nose is a good indicator ;) (sheep and pigs are very easy). the problem arises when the amount of sample is very small or very old or both, then i would grab my microscope, my superoxide, my luminol and all the other nice gadgets of modern science) ciao martin m.
Fleetfang 01-03-07, 03:22 PM	Let me sound off here by saying, first, that I really enjoy 'investigative' mods. And by that I mean mods that actually allow for roleplaying one's character more than "We'll take the job, just point us at the bad guys." My primary PC is a Rogue/Bard who is a blast to play. Not the most cracked out guy (not for a lack of trying), but just a very fun character. That said, I see two major problems with some 'investigative' mods. Both relate to the structure of them. While some of this is often -by necessity- compensated for by a good (or merciful, depending on your POV), the trouble, I fear, is in the writing. First, there are the scenarios where the party basically shops for information. They get a list of people that they might talk to or places they might go, and each one must be visited in turn. Even if it isn't necessary to visit them all to figure things out, the structure presents itself almost like a video game. The party knows that it is their job to collect all of the pieces of the Tri-Force and then they can defeat the Evil Ganon. Or, rather, talk to everyone ("all your bulletpoints are belong to us!") and then they will face the bad guy. The party connects these dots like good little robots in a labored haze. "Just get on with it and we'll go to the next guy," they start to think. Secondly, there are mods that have NO 'shopping list' but instead simply let the PCs loose with the idea that there's a mystery to be solved. But they have no idea of who to start with or where to go. I can think of one very good mod (though I don't recall if it's retired now or not) where the PCs were put in a town and they basically had to knock on doors until they happened to trigger some important information. Not only does that lack of focus swiftly become frustrating, but it takes a ton of time to do the scenario justice. (To be fair, after running it myself, I thought it was a great mystery, and really creepy to boot.) But more to the point, that kind of blind fumbling in the dark almost always does nothing to present a line of rising action or tension for the story. (It is worse when this unfocused 'investigation' leads to no new information and then the plot turns on the infamous 'asleep at the inn' encounter. But that has been discussed.) So we have the mod with an utterly transparent structure, and one with a structure that is so opaque so as not to really be an "adventure." The inherent problem is that in LG, people have come to expect things to fall into a strict structure. Three encounters, usually on the same day, unless you're travelling overland. Now, those encounters might be traps or they might be tough diplomacy encounters or they might be fights. Most often they are fights, of course, because it's easier to balance those for a 'normal' party. Some mods that I've seen recently have broken with this traditional set-up. The "inevitable" fight just doesn't happen. In fact, if people try to fight the 'bad guy,' the mod almost immediately ends. Also, in Verbobonc, I've seen a new trend of very cinematic "action scenes" replacing the typical thug encounters in at least a couple of the newer mods for Y6. The departure from the "Three Encounter Model" is really refreshing, if perhaps disappointing for the BDF-Bring-the-Pain!!-Types. Of course, this balances out with other mods that are almost completely hack-fests. So in the long run, everyone's pretty happy with things. In the long run. The important thing to remember is that even if you have a play opportunity, you don't HAVE to take it. If a blurb says the mod's investigative, bring your Face and leave the Cleaver at home. Or if you personally hate investigation mods on principle, just skip the mod. Or wait until other people play it and get the scuttlebutt. Ask them if they think you would enjoy it. If not, then there's always a Battle Interactive coming up somewhere that you can look forward to. :) But I digress. Those two structural problems are things that have bugged me in the past. And that's coming from a player who LIKES to solve a puzzle or a mystery or two in the course of playing a game. Just my two bits. --FF
LGMoses 01-03-07, 03:42 PM	I'm running an investigative mod tuesday. I interested to see how my players react. I'm going to have to look up more on Greyhawk city though.... some fun attractions, descriptions of the Grand Citadel ,etc.
smerwin29 01-03-07, 04:03 PM	I see two major problems with some 'investigative' mods. Both relate to the structure of them. While some of this is often -by necessity- compensated for by a good (or merciful, depending on your POV), the trouble, I fear, is in the writing. First, there are the scenarios where the party basically shops for information. Secondly, there are mods that have NO 'shopping list' but instead simply let the PCs loose with the idea that there's a mystery to be solved. So we have the mod with an utterly transparent structure, and one with a structure that is so opaque so as not to really be an "adventure." While I certainly agree with you, I have to say that I'm not sure what you expect. In a sense, this is like going to a football game and saying that it is inferior because people are either cheering or one team or the other. ;-) With anything, be it architecture or fiction or social conventions there is necessarily a structure. Form does indeed follow function. It has been said that there are only two types of stories: "the heroic journey" and "a stranger comes to town." And in a sense that is true: a story is either about a character changing because of movement in a direction (be it psychological or physical or emotional) or a character changing because an outside force is affecting them. In the fiction classes I teach, the first thing I tell my students is that once you break open the stories and start looking at how they are crafted, you risk ruining the experience of reading the stories AS STORIES because you will start seeing the proverbial man behind the curtain. It sounds like you have reached the point where you are seeing the man behind the curtain instead of the illusion created by the interaction of the text, the DM, and the players. It happens. In terms of the investigation adventure, you are correct. The point of them is to have the PCs unaware of something in the beginning, and through a series of encounters, find the information needed to make them aware of what they were unaware before. There are a limited number of ways to do this. Unless you want to see, as you say, the blind fumbling in the dark, there has to be some sort of "trail" to follow. One method is a trail where one clue leads to the next until the mystery is solved: linear, if you will. Another method is to make the clues need to be accumulated in no particular order, but only after collecting them all is the answer known. These two methods can be combined, of course, and altered in little ways. But in the end, the "art" of writing any RPGA adventure, investigative or not, is so limited by so many factors that patterns are unavoidable. The good writers learn the patterns quickly and then take steps to alter the patterns enough to seem innovative. The most a writer can hope for is that, at least while the adventure is being played, the DM will make every effort to uphold the illusion of the adventure, and the players will remain in character and enjoy the illusion rather than meta-game and exploit or bemoan the inevitable similarities with the hundreds, if not thousands, or RPGA adventures that have come before. Or to summarize this post in one sentence: You are right, so stop thinking so darn much! :-D Shawn
Lomiat 01-03-07, 05:35 PM	I agree with Fleetfoot and Shawn for the most part, but one of the options a writer can pursue in writing an investigative mod is to allow for failure--partial, total, whatever, just that parties might fail to do XYZ before the curtain falls. This might prove frustrating to players who play the adventure and fail, but it might also do something to alleviate the "video game" experience. The structure of the adventure is highlighted all the more when the players realize that the adventure won't change no matter what actions they take--no matter what they do for two or three days or a couple weeks, nothing's going to change until they talk to NPC X. When the author accounts for different possible endings (especially when they're not just 0 or 1 binary: success or failure), then the "investigative" parts take on a different light. The trick is to make the players CARE (or at least the PCs).
Fleetfang 01-03-07, 05:45 PM	Shawn, you know, that's funny. I heard that advice a LOT while I was in drama school. :) And Lomiat, you've hit another point on the head. In combat mods, victory or failure are almost built into the structure of combat (though there are phyrric victories). Investigative mods require more finesse, and should probably have more possibility for gray endings. After reading y'all's posts, here's a more honed thought than what I first posted: I think the trouble really comes when a mod is solely the first kind of story (collect all the clues that are compartmentalized for you) or solely the second (wander around until you trigger the next boxed text). I think what I like to see are new ways of changing the one kind up into a little of the second, or vice versa. Maybe it's not that you need to talk to all the people on the list. Maybe you can only talk to one or two of them. By then, the rest have left town or have gone to bed or whatever. You deal with the clues you've gathered so far. In that way, it's less monotonous. The players "come on, let's move on to the next guy/place on the list, and I'll mark it off the list..." and the DM tells them that they can't. They'll have to figure out a different tactic. They have to wake up and deal with the monkey wrench in their falsely-assumed-to-be-predictable plan. I guess what I'm saying is to engage players, investigative mods, moreso than combat mods, need to throw a change-up now and then. They can't all be fast balls or curves.
Lomiat 01-03-07, 06:14 PM	I haven't written a flat-out investigative mod for LG yet, but I've written some investigative moments. When I've done so, I've tried to focus on the story that the PCs don't see and then give them a window of opportunity to affect it. In other words, NPCs X and Y don't just sit around until the PCs talk to/kill them; they have their own agendas. The DMs get to see what's going on, and the clues that the PCs get will allow them to pursue their opportunity if they choose, but if they wait until X has gone away, then only Y remains. Etc. Meanwhile, since most LG players I've met regard ARs much like students tend to think of grades (Q: "Did you learn anything in that class?" A:"I got an A-." As though that was an answer...), a thorough investigative mod should, I think, not only offer "gray" endings (not pure success or failure), but should iimpact the character on the AR. The regional adventure I'm currently writing isn't truly an investigative mod, but it's close. I began writing it, hoping that this would finally be the mod that I could write in under 30 pages, and now I'm looking at something like 50 pages (again!). Options are great, but as I wrote earlier in this thread, they take a lot of work to prepare (if you want to standardize them--or get them to impact the AR--rather than just leave them up to the DMs to wing at the table).
Fleetfang 01-03-07, 06:27 PM	Let me change the tone here to address the original question in a way that everyone can take part. How do we make them more fun? 1. Take an active part in what's going on. a. Help out the Face: If you don't like one guy taking over everything and ruling the mod, see if you can assist him. There's a Bard and you play a half-orc named Grokk with a 6 Charisma? Give the face guy his time in the sun. He spends Combat mods buffing you up, so give him an assist on that diplomacy. Or at least try to, Grokk. :D b. Don't forget to put the RP in RPG! As people have said, take the opportunity to role-play your character. It's sometimes a rare opportunity that there is time in a 4-hour RPGA slot to do that, so take advantage of it when you can. c. Puzzle it out yourself! If you don't like other people with their 'cracked out diplomo-cannons' taking center stage for the whole thing, see if you can end the mod early by figuring out what's going on WITHOUT jumping through all of the hoops. Screw on your thinking cap and analyze the clues. Wouldn't it be awesome if your BDF figured all of it out without making any of the gather info rolls? Play off of his simple nature and really rub the bard's nose in it: "If me, dumb Grokk, can figure out who murderer is, why Senor Fancypants not see?" 2. Remember that the party is here as a team. a. Don't over-extend the run of your show. If you play that cracked out diplomo-cannon Senor Fancypants III, don't revel too much in how you can handle the mod all by yourself. Maybe you can, and yes, this is your module to really shine in, but don't hog the limelight the whole time. I'm not saying tank your rolls or fade away into the background, but try to give other people an opportunity to jump in. b. Don't go overboard and shoot the Face in the face. If you play Grokk, have fun roleplaying him, by all means, BUT BY ALL MEANS, don't make things harder for Senor Fancypants. As we said, it's his turn to shine, so support him. Don't go out of your way to insult every NPC that he's trying to finesse. Honestly, it may be fun to you (and funny as hell the first few times), but if you do it too much, you will infuriate the guy who's trying to roleplay constructively. And then we're back to where we started, where half the table is having fun, but the other half is miserable. ;) Any other constructive tips for Players (rather than Writers?)? --Fleet
gomeztoo 01-04-07, 03:50 AM	One thing to remember is that while the PC may be thick as mud, the player does'nt need to be. Likewise, while the PC has godlike intelligence/wisdom, the player likely does not. What this means is that, imo, it is not bad roleplaying if you step outside character once in a while and, as a player, help solve the mystery by advising other players. If you as a player catch a certain hook, and you don't feel like your PC would (though you should also consider why he can't be lucky?), clue in the player of the smart PC so he can think it up. If a mod has a puzzle or riddle that the players have to solve (rather than the PCs), try to participate - don't sit back because Grokk is dumb. Sure, it isn't really a 'roleplaying' thing, but it can be fun to solve nonetheless - and while a 6 int PC may not solve it, six PCs (even if all of them have 6 int), may. And: try to get motivated. Try to find your PC wanting to solve the mystery, to participate in the adventure. I have seen players totally ignore the obvious adventure hook, just because they play characetrs that don't care or don't want to be involved. You're adventurers! Get motivated! A motivated PC makes greater effort to solve the issue.
Madfox11 01-04-07, 09:51 AM	The regional adventure I'm currently writing isn't truly an investigative mod, but it's close. I began writing it, hoping that this would finally be the mod that I could write in under 30 pages, and now I'm looking at something like 50 pages (again!). Options are great, but as I wrote earlier in this thread, they take a lot of work to prepare (if you want to standardize them--or get them to impact the AR--rather than just leave them up to the DMs to wing at the table). Ah yes, I once wrote a meta-regional that gave the PCs so many options it basically came down to three or four seperate adventures that all just happened to start with the same first encounter. In any event, players need victories or else they tend to loose interest in the game. So I prefer to to let the consequences of an adventure be independend of victory. For example, in a now retired Sunndi regional the PCs are asked to reinforce a local border fortress and scout the region. On the way to the fortress, straight through enemy territory, they come across the ghost of a messenger. Her message had been stolen, and she wants the PCs to retrief it. The PCs could be victorious if they ignored her by saving the fortress, or by retrieving the stolen message. The PCs have no idea how important that message or that fortress is. I loved hearing about who choose what for what reason - a surprising amount of groups choose the ghost (surprising because there is absolutely no clue whether or not she has the best interest in mind of the region) ;) As for Gomez' remark, I agree completely, but you might be surprised how many DMs actually grumble if you advice other players out of combat. [The reason btw why I never got involved in riddles when I still good play had nothing to do with not being willing to offer OOC information - I personally hate riddles and almost always find their use highly illogical. Many uses remind me of the Deadly Trapped Door in the on-line comic Goblins ;)]
SgtHulka 01-05-07, 03:43 PM	Fleetfang did a great job outlining the two basic types of investigative mods that seem to be out there, however I would add the caveat that the "second" type I've only seen once (Key to the Grave). And I actually liked it better because motivation was stronger (see below). The thing that's always hung me up with these investigative mods is motivation. The role-playing always rings false to me because the characters seldom care much about the outcome, and care even less about the annoying NPC's they have to interview and make nice with. My PC's are far more likely to insult these people than try and be cordial. Granted, that is a problem with my characters...I happen to like Cugel the Clever archetypes better than Columbo archetypes, but so be it. Recently, I've given up on the role-playing altogether. I treat investigative mods as giant metagaming excercises wherein I know I have to ask question x to reach conclusion y and I just do it, out of character, because I know my characters woud never do so. It has actually made investigative mods more palatable. So my advise to authors isn't about the structure of the mod itself -- it's about motivating the characters. Make sure they have strong motivation, and remember that plenty of characters are fairly mercenary. Just because Patty Pennyworth lost her kitten and it's quickly discovered it was used in a horrific ritual doesn't mean every PC is going to jump at the opportunity to solve the mystery. If every PC has been poisoned, however, and must solve the mystery in order to find the antidote, now we're talking. Maybe in that sort of instance my characters would suddenly start being cordial.
Samwise 01-05-07, 04:05 PM	The thing that's always hung me up with these investigative mods is motivation. The role-playing always rings false to me because the characters seldom care much about the outcome, and care even less about the annoying NPC's they have to interview and make nice with. My PC's are far more likely to insult these people than try and be cordial. Granted, that is a problem with my characters...I happen to like Cugel the Clever archetypes better than Columbo archetypes, but so be it. That poses two problems. The general problem is trying to find a hook to motivate 15,000 different people. We've got some good authors in LG, but I think even the best will have just a bit of trouble meeting that requirement. More specifically, the kind of hooks that ensnare Cugel the Clever are the kind that will outrage most players. Cugel was forced through most of his adventures under threat of death (or worse). The gratuitous abuse heaped on him and that he heaped on casual passers-by in turn is really not appropriate for LG, no matter how much EGG liked Vance. Combined, the two will work once or twice a year, and only with significant rewards afterwards, and even then some people will walk away upset that someone treated them the way they typically treat NPCs.
gomeztoo 01-05-07, 04:10 PM	Make sure they have strong motivation, and remember that plenty of characters are fairly mercenary. The problem here is the implication that most PCs are only motivated with money. That is a major issue when you demand authors motivate people. I do my best in mys scanrios, but the fact is: if your PC does not give a damn about the suffering of others, and also has no innate curiosity, you should not be surprised if the scenario doesn't cater for you when it comes to motivation. In fact, you should really be wondering why you are adventuring. If it is for the money, you would do better to join the army.
TallGuy 01-05-07, 04:18 PM	So my advise to authors isn't about the structure of the mod itself -- it's about motivating the characters. Make sure they have strong motivation, and remember that plenty of characters are fairly mercenary. Just because Patty Pennyworth lost her kitten and it's quickly discovered it was used in a horrific ritual doesn't mean every PC is going to jump at the opportunity to solve the mystery. If every PC has been poisoned, however, and must solve the mystery in order to find the antidote, now we're talking. Maybe in that sort of instance my characters would suddenly start being cordial. It isn't the author's job to get someone motivated. They provide a hook, hopefully a good one for most. After that, it's up to the PCs. If they don't CARE about the NPCs, why on Oerth are they adventuring?
Simpi 01-05-07, 04:19 PM	If every PC has been poisoned, however, and must solve the mystery in order to find the antidote, now we're talking. Maybe in that sort of instance my characters would suddenly start being cordial. Can you imagine what kind of literal storm of Divine Spell Powered "Player Wrath" you would face as author if the module started with "You have all been poisoned and must find the antitode"? For starters every relatively high APL table would say "Well, by default we would have eaten Heroes Feast every day* so get lost" and every other table would say "Well duh, we just walk to nearest temple and pay for neutralise poison if that's the case" or "Wait, you actually did not descripe us eating food. Had you descriped it we would have naturally casted detect poison." After this, if the poison is something not covered by SRD (= which cannot just be removed by a single spell), then you would get further complaints of author inventing his own rules to screw over players. LG players simply are not the kind of persons who would go along with that, despite how cool the module would otherwise be. Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad *This was actually told to me by one group who were attacked by monsters doing poison damage. They insisted to apply it retroactively after one of them got poisoned since it would have been their standard tactic. Of course no player had actually said they would even cast it and module itself had gone for three days by now.
TallGuy 01-05-07, 05:44 PM	That plot hook was actually used in a Year 3 module (Lerara). Worked quite nicely, too. I didn't hear too many complaints, especially since it wasn't a poison but a magical disease that broke out while the PCs just happened to be in town. I hadn't heard too many complaints at the time. Bas Vermeulen
GrahamWills 01-05-07, 06:13 PM	I have written many, many investigative scenarios -- mostly for other systems (Call of Cthulhu, Rolemaster, Deadlands, Toon) and here is what I like to do: Define the critical things that MUST happen for any sort of successful game (a successful game means it was fun to play, not necessarily a beaten mod) Ensure there are THREE DIFFERENT ways to achieve each thing Apply penalties or bonuses depending which way is used (the principle is "reward intelligent play; allow stupid play a chance" Write explicit pacing instructions so players do not spend too much time in useless areas. Direct GMs to say things like "after a full hour of searching, you feel sure the room has no further clues to give you" Three different ways may seem like overkill, but it really is needed. If you have 3 critical events, this does not mean 9 encounters are needed! As an example: CRITICAL ITEM: To discover the location of the missing duke, the party must find and talk to "Bob the Snitch" who saw him abducted. 1) Gather Info DC X gets you to his house. The landlord knows he is missing and you can Diplomacy to get him to tell you where. The landlord will also tell yuo some interesting info 2) Any criminal meta-org will allow you to spend a favor to find him 3) At the end of the morning, if they have not found him, Bob the Snitch will be killed. Speak with Dead is needed to talk to him (local cleric charges for service) and the bad guys have extra time to prepare their hideout (the traps in locations 1,2 and 5 now have a 5 higher DC and do d8 more damage) This can be run in minutes if necessary to fix pacing, but gives plenty of scope for roleplaying and doesn't complety kill a mod where no-one has gather/dip/speak with dead/meta-org access. The principle is basically that if you do actually INVESTIGATE, you will get extra benefits and do well. However if you fail because you are unlucky, tired, or just mind-blanked, then you will get penalized. If you just couldn't care and don't bother to attempt anything, then you will end up with so many bad things happenign down the line that the mod will be memorable one way or another ...
Mattastrophic 01-05-07, 06:28 PM	This point got brought up, and I really have to hammer this one down: "Let the bard talk!" It angers me to no end when Grokk derails the bard and messes up the mod instead of shutting up and letting the bard do his thing. In fact, I can remember one specific example when my "Fascinate for the win" became "Horrid Wilting in the surprise round" because of a guy like that. (Luckily, he died due to Finger of Death, so we can hope he learned his lesson.) And honestly, especially when this thread neighbors the "Mods are too easy" thread, would it be that wrong if a combat-cheesed party just auto-failed an investigative mod? Myself, I am completely sick of static Diplomacy DCs, Gather Infos a Cleric could make, and other "Let's babysit the combat monkeys!" writing. In fact, perhaps investigative mods should be just as 'hard' as combat mods, because sometimes Grokk the 6Int, 6Cha Half-Orc just can't investigate his way out of a pint of ale, and sometimes that'll bite him in the butt. Authors shouldn't babysit Grokk, he has all sorts of combat mods to play. One of my favorite investo-style mods was a Y5 Geoff module which centered on a courtroom-style drama in which the players had to come up with an actual speech defending the merits of our people. Combat was entirely optional, and in fact fighting said combat actually penalized the players! I say, include a warning label, and authors can feel free to pull no punches on investigative mods. Just like a party just doesn't have what it takes to do combat, sometimes a party just can't do investigation. And they shouldn't be babysat for it. -Matt
Mithreinmaethor 01-05-07, 06:40 PM	Investigative mods should be restricted to Core and/or Interactive modules. Maybe Meta-regional maybe not. Just a thought
Simpi 01-05-07, 06:59 PM	Investigative mods should be restricted to Core and/or Interactive modules. Maybe Meta-regional maybe not. Just a thought May I ask what could possibly be the reason you would want it to be like that? Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad
Samwise 01-05-07, 07:50 PM	Lerara is pretty much the once a year you can get away with. If that became commonplace, players would demand the ability to have spells carry over between adventures and have pre-cast spells if they are going to start adventures with effects in place on them. Which relates to what Simpi said about heroes' feast, although the groups I've run for make it quite clear they are casting it every day, especially if the adventure gets "uppity" about starting before they can prepare.
SgtHulka 01-05-07, 08:16 PM	Okay, okay, we're all supposed to be heroes, I get it. The point I'm trying to make, and that I apparently failed miserably at, is that not every character is a "let's rescue granny's cat from the tree!" hero. In fact, in my experience, there are VERY few characters like that. The point I'm making is that in investigative mods people metagame AS MUCH or MORE than a dungeon delve. People put their characters completely on hold to "role-play" sitting around picking their noses so that the high charisma character can ask all the questions, and then throw a few dice at random intervals to "aid another". The basic difference between a typical dungeon delve and the investigative mod is the up-front motivation, even for heroic types. "Enter the deep dark dungeon and recover the chalice" or even just "enter the deep dark dungeon and beat the snot out of any nasty monsters you find in there" are pretty simple motivations. However, an investigative mod, by its very nature, has the discovery of a mystery as its climax. Because it's a mystery, you can't come right out and use it to motivate the characters. You can't say "Please investigate the missing kitty cats because they're being used to create a demonic portal" because suddenly you've given away the ending. Instead you say "oh my gosh, kitty cats have gone missing." Sometimes no one even asks you to investigate -- it's just assumed that you will because you're "heroes". Sometimes you are asked to investigate, but it's not clear why -- why isn't someone asking the City Watch, instead? This is less of a problem in the second or third mod of a series, when the characters have established a relationship with NPC's, but I'm sorry, most of the time these things ring hollow to me. Why do commoners run to the Inn and ask the well-armed strangers to look for the missing children? I think it's far more likely they'd assume it's the well-armed strangers who were responsible. And there -- a good motivation -- find the children to prove your innocence. So my conclusion has been either give in to the metagaming -- which I do quite happily now -- or just avoid investigative mods. It seems that at least half of all mods are investigations, and it also appears from this board and from "the best mod of year X" polls that most people love them. Fantastic, more power to you who love them. But it means that a lot of the play opportunities are investigations, and those people who don't like them would lose a lot of play by avoiding them. Yes, just like "pure" role-players would lose a lot of play avoiding all combat-intensive mods. To be honest I'm trying to remain cordial but I'm more than a little bit angry about everyone jumping all over me saying "Oh my god you evil bastard how dare you claim that there's no motivation there's no room for that kind of non-heroic thinking in LG." Everyone knows that sixty percent of characters have one motivation -- gaining max xp, max gold, and max favors from a mod. That's true whether it's an investigation, dungeon delve, or random romp in the woods. And no, I didn't say "all" characters are mercenary. I said "many" of them are. If you can disprove that statement, wonderful for you. As for Cugel the Clever, yeah okay he's a pretty rotten and irredeemable guy. But how about Farfhed and the Grey Mouser? Or even Conan the barbarian? Are you really saying there's no place in LG for the mercenary character who eventually does good but is initially motivated not by valor but by greed? If so I should probably retire all but one of my characters right now. And yes, I know about the poison thing with magic and with people *****ing. I wasn't trying to say "here do this exact thing." I was trying to illustrate my point with a specific example from popular culture. But obviously I failed there, too. I'm also clearly in a minority of one, so I will shut up now.
budleiser 01-05-07, 08:42 PM	Investigative mods should be restricted to Core and/or Interactive modules. Maybe Meta-regional maybe not. Just a thought No. It should be like Prestige Classes. You should need AR access to play in an investigation mod.
Samwise 01-05-07, 09:32 PM	Okay, okay, we're all supposed to be heroes, I get it. The point I'm trying to make, and that I apparently failed miserably at, is that not every character is a "let's rescue granny's cat from the tree!" hero. In fact, in my experience, there are VERY few characters like that. They don't have to be. I does help to be the wandering "Yeah, I'll do it" type though. That or accept that you walk away from half the adventures because you are a mercenary and don't get everything up front. But note below. Instead you say "oh my gosh, kitty cats have gone missing." Sometimes no one even asks you to investigate -- it's just assumed that you will because you're "heroes". Sometimes yes, but that is very rare. Sometimes you are asked to investigate, but it's not clear why -- why isn't someone asking the City Watch, instead? Sometimes that is part of the mystery. Why do commoners run to the Inn and ask the well-armed strangers to look for the missing children? Maybe that is because they assume you are the wandering hero type instead of the mercenary type. And yes, that might be a poor assumption on their part. It might equally be a poor assumption on your character's part that everyone is happy dealing with mercenaries. Sometimes people would rather find someone willing to do something because it is right rather than trust you won't simply sell out for a higher payment. Just as you questioned why the commoners look to the heroes, if you ask why they would look to the mercenaries too much, you might find the answer is they won't, and you will have talked yourself out of another adventure. I think it's far more likely they'd assume it's the well-armed strangers who were responsible. And there -- a good motivation -- find the children to prove your innocence. Yep, that's possible. I rejected an adventure proposal once for that very reason. It was simply overwhelmingly more likely the patron would blame the PCs for the trouble than hire them to resolve it, and the author couldn't come up with a way to overcome that. So my conclusion has been either give in to the metagaming -- which I do quite happily now -- or just avoid investigative mods. It seems that at least half of all mods are investigations, and it also appears from this board and from "the best mod of year X" polls that most people love them. Fantastic, more power to you who love them. But it means that a lot of the play opportunities are investigations, and those people who don't like them would lose a lot of play by avoiding them. Yes, just like "pure" role-players would lose a lot of play avoiding all combat-intensive mods. No, they wouldn't. But they might not enjoy them as much. And just as you skip the investigative adventures, they might be inclined to skip the dungeon crawls. That leaves a choice of everyone being happy half the time, or half the player base quitting full time. To be honest I'm trying to remain cordial but I'm more than a little bit angry about everyone jumping all over me saying "Oh my god you evil bastard how dare you claim that there's no motivation there's no room for that kind of non-heroic thinking in LG." I don't recall anyone saying that. They just said there is room for other motivations, and that it would help to have some sort of heroic streak somewhere in your PCs motivations, however minor it might be. Everyone knows that sixty percent of characters have one motivation -- gaining max xp, max gold, and max favors from a mod. That's true whether it's an investigation, dungeon delve, or random romp in the woods. And no, I didn't say "all" characters are mercenary. I said "many" of them are. If you can disprove that statement, wonderful for you.[quote] There is no need. I'll even grant for the moment that LG is utterly dominated by people who just want to add up the new loot and xp totals on their character sheet, and don't give a fig about what is in the adventure one way or the other. What you are missing is that equation also invalidates your preferred character type. It means LG adventures should be nothing but straightforward series' of encounters with no space wasted on plot or story development, just a cut to the chase of what is there and what the loot is. [quote]As for Cugel the Clever, yeah okay he's a pretty rotten and irredeemable guy. But how about Farfhed and the Grey Mouser? Or even Conan the barbarian? Are you really saying there's no place in LG for the mercenary character who eventually does good but is initially motivated not by valor but by greed? No. I could challenge your interpretation of those characters though. Conan did several missions for free, simply to help out some helpless woman. And Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser were regularly hoist on their own petards of greed. And I could note the number of characters involved in those stories, Conan being the master of the Solo adventure, with Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser merely doubling that. LG constantly involves six PCs. Again, you've certainly idenfitifed genre icons. The problem is, what works in a novel doesn't always work in a role-playing game. So even if you identify an iconic team of mercenaries from some novel, you will still be left with the problem of making the motivations work in the game. If so I should probably retire all but one of my characters right now. That would be up to you. But if you expect any of your characters to effectively solo every adventure, with the other five players constantly reduced to support roles or the occassional guest co-star as in a Cugel, Conan, or Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser story, you might have to. And yes, I know about the poison thing with magic and with people *****ing. I wasn't trying to say "here do this exact thing." I was trying to illustrate my point with a specific example from popular culture. But obviously I failed there, too. No, you made the point. What you failed to do is again understand the difference between a solo motivation and a group motivation. Poison one person and he goes on a desperate solo-quest to save his life. Poison six people and they throw more than than you can shake a stick at in your face in complaint before wrecking the scenario outright with any of the dozens (hundreds) of magical workarounds that abound in D&D. I'm also clearly in a minority of one, so I will shut up now. No one asked you to do that either. It would be nice if you tried to keep in mind people who prefer other types of adventures, but I make notes of all specific, foccused, constructive feedback for future consideration when reviewing adventures. If people regularly complain about a lack of motivation or an abundance of patron appearances that strain belief, I note to caution authors about them in the future, and have them changed if at all possible. That doesn't include a blanket "no more investigative/hackfest/role-play/whatever" adventures. Such feedback-requests are simply not going to be implemented.
LGMoses 01-06-07, 12:20 AM	Fleetfang did a great job outlining the two basic types of investigative mods that seem to be out there, however I would add the caveat that the "second" type I've only seen once (Key to the Grave). And I actually liked it better because motivation was stronger (see below). The thing that's always hung me up with these investigative mods is motivation. The role-playing always rings false to me because the characters seldom care much about the outcome, and care even less about the annoying NPC's they have to interview and make nice with. My PC's are far more likely to insult these people than try and be cordial. Granted, that is a problem with my characters...I happen to like Cugel the Clever archetypes better than Columbo archetypes, but so be it. Recently, I've given up on the role-playing altogether. I treat investigative mods as giant metagaming excercises wherein I know I have to ask question x to reach conclusion y and I just do it, out of character, because I know my characters woud never do so. It has actually made investigative mods more palatable. So my advise to authors isn't about the structure of the mod itself -- it's about motivating the characters. Make sure they have strong motivation, and remember that plenty of characters are fairly mercenary. Just because Patty Pennyworth lost her kitten and it's quickly discovered it was used in a horrific ritual doesn't mean every PC is going to jump at the opportunity to solve the mystery. If every PC has been poisoned, however, and must solve the mystery in order to find the antidote, now we're talking. Maybe in that sort of instance my characters would suddenly start being cordial. Just don't mess up the faces time in the spotlight. He supports Conan in battle so leave him his time in the sun in town.
TallGuy 01-06-07, 08:56 AM	Not cool dude, not cool. Why do you make your characters that way? Once again I have to say. DON'T MAKE CHARACTERS THAT ARE A-HOLES! HEROES SHOULD NOT BE A-HOLES! When you metagame like that you ruin the mod for everyone else. And most importantly, motivation should never flow from the barrel of a gun. I had a judge for Xen'drik Expeditions do that poison crap to me and it was BS. I got an idea, how about ur character, Grokk, has a geas put on him that he spends the next ability points he gets to raise his int/cha to a half decent number. IMO, ur post shows ur opinions to be all that is wrong concerning Dnd. Everyone is tainted by having read it, may Correllon Larethian have mercy on your soul. I'd have to disagree. If you want to make a character that's an A-hole, that's fine, and up to you. Personally, I really don't mind. Most of my characters can be complete and utter bastards, when it suits their needs or beliefs. For instance: If my Holy Liberator sees a group of slaves, and he thinks he's even got a slim chance to free them, he will. He'll even glance at the other PCs, and then charge in, knowing full well that many of them will come in after him. In some ways, that's heroic, selfless, etc, but it also forces others to act (or not, but that's their choice, and my problem). If my wizard sees something she wants, and everyone is blabbing about how to get it, she will quite happily take it (and damn the consequences, I want it!). That's given me some good things, but also gives me quite some problems at times. She's selfish, and unless there's knowledge in there, she's not coming. But one of my standard questions when asking about a mission is "Are there any wizards, magic or spellbooks? Yes? Good! Let's go!". She's got her hook, whether it's one supplied by the scenario or not. Anyways, what I'm really trying to say is, you can play a character that's an A-hole. You just can't act like an A-hole yourself, because that's no fun. And quite frankly, imho, you crossed that line. So think about how you would like to be treated, and treat others the same. Bas Vermeulen
LGMoses 01-06-07, 09:01 AM	yeah ur right i'm flaming. I gotta quit posting after work.... sorry guys
gomeztoo 01-06-07, 10:18 AM	I hadn't heard too many complaints at the time. You could actually save vs the disease in Lerara. IIRC, my char was not diseased (or got better very quickly), so I had no trouble at all. And I do recall outcry over another scenario where PCs are railroaded into a nasty situation (i.e. being under arrest in Greyhawk City). Or the Ekbir regional where you stared in jail,a rrested for murder (we ctually are still wanted). Players generally don't like it. I myself switched characters when I heard the "you're in jail" hook, because the PC I had planned to play didn't fit at all.
gomeztoo 01-06-07, 10:46 AM	People put their characters completely on hold to "role-play" sitting around picking their noses so that the high charisma character can ask all the questions, and then throw a few dice at random intervals to "aid another". OR you could be interested in solving a mystery, and let your PC participate. Why wouldn't you be able to ask questions once the person to question is put at ease? Not every NPC needs to be Diplomized to talk. Even if they do, you can ask questions through the bard. My PCs try to aprticpate by offering things the bard should ask, or even asking them themselves. Greaser has a Cha 8, but he has particpated meaningfully, simply by asking questions, searching for clues, or simply through discussing with other PCs what to do next. And as to motivation: You play an adventurer that participates in various scenarios. You know some of these scenarios may have few ways to motivate PCs. If you want to have fun playing these, you could make a PC that is easy to motivate. You don't need to, but it could make things easier. All of my PCs are easy to get into a scenario, and they are not all goody too-shoos. "Save the kitten?" PCs could react: - "Your kitten is missing? Poor dear. You must be worried. I'll help find her!" - "Ohhh... a search. I was bored stiff! Where do we start?" - "Right. You trust THEM to find your kittycat? Huh. They can't find the broad side of a barn. You need a *professional*. *I*'ll search." - "You lost the pet in ytour care? Dumb woman! I'll find that kitten, and THEN we arre going to talk about proper animal care!" - "Darn it, woman, stop da cryin'! I'll go find da cat already! Not like I have anythin' to do anyway." I had only one scenario where a PC (fat dwarf), questioned the hook (and that was because the hook was stupid: you were to perform a service, for free, and if you failed it would cost you money). But he wnet on adenture because the other Pcs asked him to come: - "So why should I go on this doomed mission?!" - "Do you have anything else to do?" - "Fair point. Lets go then."
rockondon 01-06-07, 02:02 PM	When granny asks my character to get her cat, I tell her to go chase herself. That's the way I act out a low charisma. I could roleplay it other ways, but being inconsiderate seems suitable to me. Says something about my own personality I suppose. Maybe I'm a jerk...shoot me. But after I shrug off the offer of saving the cat, I know full well that the rest of the party will be all over doing the good deed and I get dragged (or I pretend to get dragged) along with them. In truth, this is what I want to have happen anyway - but in the interest of roleplaying I pretend otherwise. If you don't want to roleplay a goody two-shoes...then don't. Decide on your character's personality then act it out - regardless of what it is, you can still finish the mods.
LGMoses 01-06-07, 06:05 PM	Grugg want to pet kitty....
gomeztoo 01-07-07, 08:24 AM	When granny asks my character to get her cat, I tell her to go chase herself. That's the way I act out a low charisma. I could roleplay it other ways, but being inconsiderate seems suitable to me. That is fine. what is not fine is to then blame the authors that the scenario hook doesn't cater to such a PC.
rockondon 01-07-07, 08:19 PM	So I spent the last few days writing my first module - and I made it a mostly investigative one just to see how hard it would be to weed out the things that can hurt the fun of these kind of mods. I see most or all of these things in modules already but this is kind of a summary of pointers I made for myself. Things I tried to avoid: PCs getting stuck for not having the right feat or knowledge: basketweaving, too linear, doesn't involve all the players, getting stuck for missing the DC 99 spot check, getting stuck for not asking some specific question. If they have feat X or knowledge basketweaving, the PCs get to location Y easier or are able to beat monster Z easier, so players who take obscure skills are rewarded for it. If they are a bunch of optimizing munchkins who don't have the right feat or skill, they will still get there and still fight it, but it won't be as easy. Or instead of making things easier, having feat X may provide a certain access or favor. Avoiding being too linear was easy enough: if they have to go to location X either A, B, or C will cue them for going there. Don't let them know there were 3 ways to figure it out, imply that they found the only way to get there - good job guys. You can involve all the players with riddles, puzzles, combats, etc - but avoid a steady string of gather information/knowledge/diplomacy/etc checks. Mix those checks up with the other stuff. And maybe the NPC doesn't want to talk to the smooth-talking bard with the high diplomacy, he'd rather talk to that dull-witted barbarian whom is horrible at lying and is unable to persuade him into revealling something he doesn't want to tell. Basically, having the PCs get stuck for whatever reason is a big thing you want to avoid. I also think PCs should be awarded for figuring stuff out. I figure the best way is to award exp to players for solving things. Lets say that if they figure out clue X, they get 500 exp. And if they don't figure out clue X, give them a hint and now if they get it they get 400 exp. If they still don't get it, some NPC solves it later on then brings it to the PCs attention and they get 0 exp for that encounter. But at least they continue on to the rest of the module and can make more exp there.
Samwise 01-07-07, 08:55 PM	Basically, having the PCs get stuck for whatever reason is a big thing you want to avoid. I also think PCs should be awarded for figuring stuff out. I figure the best way is to award exp to players for solving things. Lets say that if they figure out clue X, they get 500 exp. And if they don't figure out clue X, give them a hint and now if they get it they get 400 exp. If they still don't get it, some NPC solves it later on then brings it to the PCs attention and they get 0 exp for that encounter. But at least they continue on to the rest of the module and can make more exp there. So I can lose xp for not figuring out some clue or puzzle? Combat is one thing, or failing the mission directly, but just not getting a clue and I lose out on xp? That is one of the biggest complaints I used to hear about investigative adventures, particularly if players find a way to short circuit the adventure and don't need a particular clue or side plot to complete the main adventure.
clannagh 01-07-07, 10:16 PM	So I can lose xp for not figuring out some clue or puzzle? Combat is one thing, or failing the mission directly, but just not getting a clue and I lose out on xp? That is one of the biggest complaints I used to hear about investigative adventures, particularly if players find a way to short circuit the adventure and don't need a particular clue or side plot to complete the main adventure. A preferable option is to allow encounter XP and gold for EITHER diplomacy and investigation OR combat if the first is ignored or fails. One of the most annoying habits of LG mod writers is the way they reward good diplomacy and fact finding by taking away the loot. I see it this way .. you diplomacise/intimidate your way out of a fight and then offer the orc wizzie full market price for his second hand staff .. of course he will sell it to you !!!! But not in LG .. its very much kill the baddie OR get XP but lose all the funky access ... and it does not have to be that way.
Samwise 01-07-07, 10:29 PM	A preferable option is to allow encounter XP and gold for EITHER diplomacy and investigation OR combat if the first is ignored or fails. Yes it would. The xp can be handled by simply phrasing the award properly. That's being done more and more. The gp is being worked on. One of the most annoying habits of LG mod writers is the way they reward good diplomacy and fact finding by taking away the loot. I see it this way .. you diplomacise/intimidate your way out of a fight and then offer the orc wizzie full market price for his second hand staff .. of course he will sell it to you !!!! But not in LG .. its very much kill the baddie OR get XP but lose all the funky access ... and it does not have to be that way. OK, we'll see about changing that. Just remember, most enemies need to be turned Helpful to offer equipment like that. It will always be an uncommon occurrence, except for parties with a dedicated "face."
rockondon 01-07-07, 11:20 PM	So I can lose xp for not figuring out some clue or puzzle? Combat is one thing, or failing the mission directly, but just not getting a clue and I lose out on xp? well if they figure things out due to their own ingenuity then by all means they get full experience. The key concern is whether or not they needed additional help to help them in their quest - if so, then they'd lose exp. Some mods provide hints and help which is great. Other times we sit there stuck and either we get crappy ARs or the GM cheats and says "Okay okay this is where you're supposed to go..." I'd rather lose exp then have the GM take us by the hand and railroad us to the next plot hook.
Samwise 01-07-07, 11:35 PM	well if they figure things out due to their own ingenuity then by all means they get full experience. The key concern is whether or not they needed additional help to help them in their quest - if so, then they'd lose exp. Well, no. The key concerns are whether someone should lose xp for something that isn't an actual encounter according to the core rules, and whether someone should lose xp for an encounter they never have to deal with. The second is the most critical. I've seen several investigative adventures (and dealt with complaints afterwards) where the players simply figure everything out and sidestep part of the investigation. If I am good enough to go from A to C to D and never have to bother with B, why should I be penalized because I'm better at figuring out a mystery than the typical party (or even the author)? Some mods provide hints and help which is great. Other times we sit there stuck and either we get crappy ARs or the GM cheats and says "Okay okay this is where you're supposed to go..." I'd rather lose exp then have the GM take us by the hand and railroad us to the next plot hook. That's fine. Lots of other people don't want to lose xp because they were railroaded by the author into investigating something they didn't have to, or because his clues were too esoteric. That's why xp is routinely not awarded for solving clues in an adventure, only discovering them. These situations played themselves out in the first two years of the campaign, and presentation standards have changed as a result. That's why the best reward for discovering information is something that effectively reduces the difficulty of the combat or traps rather than something that gives xp or gp.
rockondon 01-08-07, 12:11 AM	If I am good enough to go from A to C to D and never have to bother with B, why should I be penalized because I'm better at figuring out a mystery than the typical party (or even the author)? as I've mentioned, I would award full exp to someone who solved it all without needing additional help. So if you skip from A to C to Z great - you wouldn't lose any exp. All I wanted to do was reward people for figuring stuff out. But I can see how rewarding people for solving things also punishes those who don't solve them, so I can see your point. That's why the best reward for discovering information is something that effectively reduces the difficulty of the combat or traps rather than something that gives xp or gp. I agree.
Samwise 01-08-07, 12:33 AM	as I've mentioned, I would award full exp to someone who solved it all without needing additional help. So if you skip from A to C to Z great - you wouldn't lose any exp. The thing is, that isn't how the xp awards are set up in adventure. If you set a task, the xp are for that task only. All I wanted to do was reward people for figuring stuff out. But I can see how rewarding people for solving things also punishes those who don't solve them, so I can see your point. So did we. (Me as a campaign administrator and several authors who submitted adventures based on this.) We learned the hard way. (Including "You/investigative adventures suck!" threads.) The main thing is, you can't "punish" people in an adventure for failing at non-combat tasks. You don't have to reward them for totally blowing a combat or mission somehow, and you can set certain limits for dealing with NPC patrons, but beyond that, most everything needs to be based on directly overcoming bad guys. That restricts a lot of what you can do, but once you understand it, it also gives you the starting point for dealing with it.
gomeztoo 01-08-07, 02:54 AM	So I can lose xp for not figuring out some clue or puzzle? I thinkw hatwa sintende dis that you should not get xp only for combat encounters. You cane arn xp for achieving certain goals, or for finding out important information, seperate from combat. Soemtimes, you aware dadventurers for being adventurers - that is, for being inqyuisitive, and floowing leads. I think that is fair. And just as you can earn xp when avoiding a trap, you can earn xp if you solve a puzzle. Of course, the puzzle should have a bit of risk in it to make it xp-worthy.
budleiser 01-08-07, 08:55 AM	Lately the talk has been about XP and Gold. The real rewards and what you should give for non-combat is AR access to feats, spells, items and favors. I could care less if I got less than full XP. Gold I want full, but feel free to give me less XP.
Fleetfang 01-08-07, 11:01 AM	To swing the conversation back toward the topic of players making Investigative mods more fun, and the idea of motivating your own PC to have a stake in the adventure (since I was away from the boards for the weekend).... I think the point stands that while authors could do more to invest the PCs' stake in success or failure, that onus really lies with the players. SgtHulka mentioned that "Go down there and slay all the nasty monsters" is a mission that everyone can get behind." But I think I'd disagree. Players might be able to get behind that. But if you think about it, the personality of adventurers really has something more than greed at it's heart. Looking at the rewards of adventuring, sure there's money involved, but there's a great risk of death. My guess is that young men and women looking to make their fortune in Greyhawk would be really quite set financially if they quit this risky business after they reached level 2 or 3. They could live very comfortably for the rest of their lives. But most PCs aren't satisfied with that. They don't spend that money on a huge estate and farmland. Instead they buy magic equipment so that they can go on more adventures. So really, if you think about it, getting money seems like it should most often be a side effect of the pursuit of glory or good, or excitement, or whatever... something other than the money (though that might be an excuse that a character uses, ie. Haley in OotS). Maybe money IS the only thing that motivates your PC. But to me, that's kind of a boring acting choice, when there is so much more beneath the surface. Dig a little deeper, and I'm sure that every one of your PCs has something that's more important to them. --FF
gomeztoo 01-08-07, 11:24 AM	It seems to me that money is something that motivates the player: I need gp to make my char better. That is definitely how it works for me: I, the player, would like to have earned a smackload of gold at the end of a scenario. Most of my PCs wouldn't care. Even Greaser, my rogue, steals mostly because of the thrill of getting away with it, not because he wants to get rich (even though he tells himself something differently). After all, if he was just in it for the money, he could indeed have quit by now.
Fleetfang 01-08-07, 11:50 AM	Right Gomez, but consider the PC that is ONLY motivated by money. I once saw a mod end in five minutes because one player at the table insisted on payment up front. His character was a mercenary-with-a-capital-m. He wouldn't say 'gesundheit' without a jingle of coin for his trouble. Got him? Great. Well, the dwarves were in trouble and they needed some heroes. People who would face almost certain death in order to save the clan and protect the lands. This guy said, "Sure, but what's in it for me?" The clan elder said "The thanks of the clan, the good of the Viscounty..." The player demanded payment up front. Sure, the player would have settled for having another PC toss him even a single gold coin (that was his schtick), but the other players didn't know that. And the NPC dwarf certainly didn't care. The dwarf clan leader finally said, "You know what? We'll get some other people. See ya." Then the DM passed out ARs. Zero gold. Zero XP. Subtract your TUs, and have a hearty congratulations on playing your character to the hilt. Cheers! It's a situation like that that gets me steamed about people who consider 'all about the Benjamins' to be a perfectly valid motivation. It didn't work for this guy's PC, and as a result, it killed the entire module for everyone at the table. Moreover, I am dismayed when players don't find anything that they can find appealing in the hook, nothing that they can justify going along with in-character, nothing for them to motivate themselves with at all... and then rely on other player-characters to keep them in the scenario. For example: Grokk, the irritable half-orc who hates everyone and has absolutely NO idea of social custom or mannerisms, doesn't even TRY to speak nicely to anyone, and has no empathy for anyone at all. If that's Grokk's character, then fine. But if he has no interest in helping to save Grandma's kittens, his player shouldn't be looking to Senor Fancypants III to ask him to come along. In fact, Fancypants probably would be MUCH happier if he would stop tagging along, not only not contributing, but actually impeding the mission, and go find some monsters to kill/annoy. Unfortunately, one PC can't tell another PC to leave the scenario. And if a PC talks about leaving or not being interested, I have yet to see anyone actually leave a scenario of their own volition. Consider this: In the same way that it might be a violation of Grokk's character to do something without a reward, it might be a violation of Senor Fancypants' character to continue along with such a boorish, inconsiderate, rude, and counter-productive ally. I think I just might have to push back with that angle the next time I run into a one-dimensional 'jerk' character. :devil: Inspire Courage? Yeah, Grokk's not included. Haste? No, Grokk's not my ally. Grokk's bleeding out? Wow. Sucks to be him. It's too bad that he was such a pain in Mr. Fancypants' fancy pants earlier. It's just not in his character to help someone who obviously was going out of his way to make things harder for him and impede the investigation so much. IN FACT... Guard Captain! I have the murderer here in custody. His name is Grokk. I'm sure he's guilty. Just look at how mad he is at me for uncovering his nefarious plans....
budleiser 01-08-07, 12:04 PM	It's a situation like that that gets me steamed about people who consider 'all about the Benjamins' to be a perfectly valid motivation. It didn't work for this guy's PC, and as a result, it killed the entire module for everyone at the table. Ha if I saw that I would think thats a poor DM. Not sure if DM is allowed to hand out blank AR to 1 person, if so he should have handed it to that 1 person and let the other players continue. I don't know the whole story. You did not mention at all what the others players are doing. But if X will go with the adventure and 1 is ruining it then 1 gets left out not X.
gomeztoo 01-08-07, 12:29 PM	The player demanded payment up front. Sure, the player would have settled for having another PC toss him even a single gold coin (that was his schtick), but the other players didn't know that. Sounds like a mistake that I have made on occassion which is to not explain other players how the PC works. If he had told other players "just bribe him, that's how he works", there'd be likely little problem unless the others were also greedy.
Fleetfang 01-08-07, 12:34 PM	From what I recall, the other players were somewhat new to the game, and the experienced guy was playing the mercenary. They sat by, watching him do his RP thing with the judge, and by the time it escalated to "see ya," it was too late for them to do anything. I think they thought it was just as amusing as the merc's player thought, until the consequences of his role-playing came out. Other factors were involved as well... It would have been three PCs without the mercenary, and likely doomed to a TPK. Also, it was at the mercenary's house, so they couldn't very well play for four hours at their host's place while he sat around doing nothing. Funny. Every time I tell that story, people blame the judge. Me? I think it was a bold call, but not completely uncalled for. And the judge in question is actually very highly regarded around the Chicagoland area. I think PCs get away with far too much in the way of bullying NPCs or otherwise having over-inflated ideas of their own importance. So much so that in this story, when the judge refuses to play along with it or gloss past it and he actually has the PCs face the logical consequences of the role-playing choice of being a jerk, it's THE JUDGE who is blamed for not letting them get away with it. I've had people say that it was like he was punishing the player's effort at role-playing. Afterall, it's not fun just to be led by the nose into a mod. take the hook and move on to Encounter One. This guy was actively role-playing (which was more than what the other players were doing); why punish that? The player made an active choice, and the judge punished him for it. Of course, by "punished" we mean, he followed the action to the next logical reaction. The judge role-played in response. That's not being a bad judge. That's role-playing your NPCs. :) It was essentially an RP-TPK. The player made some bad decisions on how to play out the encounter, and as a result, the party failed the mod. This happens in combat all the time, why should it be different in a role-playing arena?
gomeztoo 01-08-07, 12:53 PM	I recall that when I DMed Duke of the Dust, halfway through the hook you had these Tehna guys (rather annoying NPCs, really) insist on casting magic on the PCs. One player refused to have spells cast on his PC (who ahted magic, he had this ant-magic PrClass that I forgot the name of), so he was forced to back out of it. I let him bring on another PC (a rogue). Later, the player planned to play some stupid trick on the NPCs. I boldly told him: look, thse NPCS are total jerks. If they find out, they dump you overboard, scenario over for you. DO you REALLY want to do this? He decided not to, and the scenario continued. I *would* have dumped him overboard. I would have had to. These guys did not appreciate 'funny things' happening on board of their ship. But I did give warning. This may be something the DM may have forgotten to say "If you go through with this, you'll not get the mission." That should at least have woken up the other players. In the end it is the player's decision. We need be mindful as DMs though to make sure that players relize the consequences of their cations. Just like you can't pull a paladin's powers without giving a warning for the act that causes the pullin'.
Samwise 01-08-07, 01:50 PM	Lately the talk has been about XP and Gold. The real rewards and what you should give for non-combat is AR access to feats, spells, items and favors. I could care less if I got less than full XP. Gold I want full, but feel free to give me less XP. I agree. The thing is, some players out there have the attitude that max xp and gp are an entitlement of showing up to play in a session, more so if they had to pay a session fee. The xp and gp aren't a possibility or a variable, or a maximum amount, they are what they get for coming to the game, and only extreme failure in combat, which for some should never have to PCs anyway, is a potential reason for them not to get those campaign standard amounts. It doesn't matter how good anything else in the adventure might be, the access, the background, the character development, the pure joy, if it doesn't have the max, it sucks.
Lomiat 01-08-07, 05:20 PM	Well, no. The key concerns are whether someone should lose xp for something that isn't an actual encounter according to the core rules, and whether someone should lose xp for an encounter they never have to deal with. The second is the most critical. I've seen several investigative adventures (and dealt with complaints afterwards) where the players simply figure everything out and sidestep part of the investigation. If I am good enough to go from A to C to D and never have to bother with B, why should I be penalized because I'm better at figuring out a mystery than the typical party (or even the author)? That's fine. Lots of other people don't want to lose xp because they were railroaded by the author into investigating something they didn't have to, or because his clues were too esoteric. That's why xp is routinely not awarded for solving clues in an adventure, only discovering them. These situations played themselves out in the first two years of the campaign, and presentation standards have changed as a result. That's why the best reward for discovering information is something that effectively reduces the difficulty of the combat or traps rather than something that gives xp or gp. Shortest mod I ever played: A now-retired SHL mod in which the party was supposed to find a guy who had an item. The introduction took us to Dyvers where we were supposed to meet him. Surprise! He wasn't there. My wizard went to the temple and asked, "Hey, what can you tell me about this guy? Can you help me draw a picture? Do you have anything that belongs to him?" One Scry and one Teleport later, we were at the final encounter of the mod. Introduction --> Encounter 7 --> Conclusion. We "missed" all those intermediary encounters (and combats), so we could have lost experience for them, but the judge (fairly, I believe) simply decided that we'd take full XP because we accomplished everything we set out to do (and he firmly believed we'd have no trouble with the other encounters; they'd just soak time). In contrast, one of the mods that soured me on LG's combat-only XP system pitted our party of 5 arcanists against an Arcane Ooze (it's a bad match-up). We ended up leaving it alone after 3 rounds of pointlessness. Now, I had no issue with losing experience if we were supposed to defeat the arcane ooze for any particular reason, but that wasn't remotely our objective. We were retrieving someone, and the arcane ooze was in our path. 5 arcanists had no trouble creating a new path and retrieving the person as we were intended, but because we didn't kill a mindless ooze that we could have killed the following day after preparing new spells, we lost XP for the encounter. It wasn't the judge's fault; it was the author's responsibility to clarify why the party would gain XP in that encounter. Rather than give XP for retrieving the particular person (as we did), the author based the encounter's XP on defeating an ooze that just happens to show up. In other words, the XP was based not on the story or mission, but on a silly tangent. I believe the XP should tie into the story--as centrally as possible.
LGMoses 01-08-07, 05:26 PM	u should have gotten the xp neways IMO. U "defeated" the ooze after all. I would have given it to you.
Samwise 01-08-07, 05:45 PM	Lomiat: BINGO! Those are two prime examples of the extremes we've been working to deal with. As I've noted, for the first we mostly limit xp to combats or other absolutely, fundamentally unavoidable encounters. For the second, we've learned to rewrite xp awards so they aren't just for killing the critter, but for dealing with it. That can include killing a critter or disarming a trap, but also totally bypassing something utterly lethal or getitng blown up by a trap. I know the answers to that should seem obvious, but you learn a lot about the difference between de facto and de jure when dealing with a campaign this size. We've got rules, and it isn't impossible to account for these possibilities within them, we just had to learn how, and it remains an ongoing process. That's why I welcome feedback and commentary. (Without spoilers of course.)
Madfox11 01-09-07, 11:56 AM	Unfortunately, one PC can't tell another PC to leave the scenario. And if a PC talks about leaving or not being interested, I have yet to see anyone actually leave a scenario of their own volition. I have seen it happen several times actually, especially if you allow them to switch characters or even tables. I did had to point this out the first time though: people can change PCs without problem as long as the adventure has not passed beyond the Introduction. Mind you, if I know a particular PC I actually warn players beforehand. As for the example of one player ruining the game for the others. Sorry, but I do blame the DM at least partially - especially when dealing with new and inexperienced gamers (experienced players might not realize they can switch PCs, or go on without that individual). Why kick out a whole team if ONE PC refuses the mission? Especially if that one PC does not even know the other characters at the table? Once again, a table only needs to be legal at the start of an adventure. Granted, 3 PCs is really risky, but is allowed.
Fleetfang 01-09-07, 01:11 PM	Is that right, Madfox? You can swap PCs during the 'Introduction' encounter? I've never heard that. Good to know. Its a moot point, but to wrap up that story, even the 'experienced' guy only had one LG PC. And the mod in question was a tough one, so much so that to go on with a party of 3, while perfectly legal under the circumstances as they changed, would have been an unrecoverable TPK. The judge knew this, and aside from the host's real world awkwardness of not playing at the game he was hosting, it wouldn't have been fun for the group to go in and die.
Simpi 01-09-07, 01:14 PM	In other words, the XP was based not on the story or mission, but on a silly tangent. I believe the XP should tie into the story--as centrally as possible. I have done couple of modules where I might have some of the xp in combat that happens no matter what and rest of "combat ex" tied to whether or not PCs achieve their objective, no matter how many fights they have or avoid doing it. Of course, on the other end of the spectrum you could now have PCs who say "Yes we failed the module but managed to kill few monsters on the way. Why I get no exp for it?" Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad
budleiser 01-09-07, 01:15 PM	Is that right, Madfox? You can swap PCs during the 'Introduction' encounter? I've never heard that. Good to know. Its a moot point, but to wrap up that story, even the 'experienced' guy only had one LG PC. And the mod in question was a tough one, so much so that to go on with a party of 3, while perfectly legal under the circumstances as they changed, would have been an unrecoverable TPK. The judge knew this, and aside from the host's real world awkwardness of not playing at the game he was hosting, it wouldn't have been fun for the group to go in and die. Since its legal to swap a PC. What is the legality of just delaying the mod for everyone? Rather than 3 noobs getting nixxed out of ever playing that adventure, would it have been legal for the mod to not happen and play a different mod instead?
Madfox11 01-09-07, 04:21 PM	To be honest, I never gave it much thought. You have never gone further than the Introduction of the adventure, if you even came that far, so you can hardly proclaim having played the adventure. I cannot find any rules that cover the situation. As a DM though you should keep in mind, that it is one thing to let a player switch PCs because he realizes his character is very ill-suited to the adventure, especially if the blurb fails to mention it (and when I review an adventure, I try to make sure a blurb mention any obvious problems). It is another to let a player do so if the characters actually destroy the introduction by for example killing the NPC who was going to hire them (I remember hearing of a pixie in a regional that pestered the PCs first, before stepping forward with his request). Always be fair about it, and don't reward a player for stupid behavior. In the few cases I did allow it was when a player realized it after the first few seconds and it had nothing to do with the behavior of the PC towards the potential employee but with his attitude toward a certain adventure point (e.g. silly example: asherati hears he has to enter a swamp at APL 2). If a character would walk in and punch the king in the face, no pitty from my side. If by any chance you got passed the Introduction I would definitely never allow switching. In this example, I would be very inclined to never hand out the ARs or book the event. After all, you are punishing three players for the actions of one other and they have not yet even played a thing or ran across anything remotely spoilerish. What if one player realizes he already played it (something that I have seen happen more often actually than people wanting to switch characters*)? Punishing the other players for it would be even worse... Now lets hope I did not kick in some kind of hornets nest... :hides: * Probably because I DM a lot, know a lot of the PCs in my neighborhood and actually warn people before the game even starts when a character is truly inappropiate and because very characters are actually truly inappropiate.
Fleetfang 01-09-07, 05:15 PM	No hornet's nest here. I mean, this event happened. They booked it the way they did, and the judge made a call. Right or wrong, it was his situation to deal with. Apparently, the judge felt it was his prerogative to deal with the haughty/adamant/money-minded mercenary in a realistic way. None of the other characters stepped up to defend the character's actions to the NPC, or to shove him to the back of the RP-encounter, and the judge made the call. It's a done deal and a long time has passed since then. I brought it up, though, as an illustration of how one-dimensional roleplaying, or intentionally making trouble with the plot hook sometimes means that there's no adventure. You know? There are actually a lot of mods out there with that caveat... "If any of the characters decide not to [help Grandma find her kittens], they are free to wander [the fairgrounds] but the adventure is essentially over for them." But I can see that my anecdote unintentionally split the thread from it's original focus... I think the topic was about low charisma characters futzing up RP encounters for the party as a whole...?
vvincent 01-09-07, 05:22 PM	Fleetfang - can you forward me the name of that DM? I like the cut of his giblets. He absolutely made the right call - and I would back him 100% on his decision. Also - what was that adventure? You're correct as well - the DM gave the player the logical consequence of his actions. People only want the logical consequence when it benefits them somehow. But you gotta take the bad with the good. You can't have it both ways. Vernon L. Vincent Verbobonc Triad From what I recall, the other players were somewhat new to the game, and the experienced guy was playing the mercenary. They sat by, watching him do his RP thing with the judge, and by the time it escalated to "see ya," it was too late for them to do anything. I think they thought it was just as amusing as the merc's player thought, until the consequences of his role-playing came out. Other factors were involved as well... It would have been three PCs without the mercenary, and likely doomed to a TPK. Also, it was at the mercenary's house, so they couldn't very well play for four hours at their host's place while he sat around doing nothing. Funny. Every time I tell that story, people blame the judge. Me? I think it was a bold call, but not completely uncalled for. And the judge in question is actually very highly regarded around the Chicagoland area. I think PCs get away with far too much in the way of bullying NPCs or otherwise having over-inflated ideas of their own importance. So much so that in this story, when the judge refuses to play along with it or gloss past it and he actually has the PCs face the logical consequences of the role-playing choice of being a jerk, it's THE JUDGE who is blamed for not letting them get away with it. I've had people say that it was like he was punishing the player's effort at role-playing. Afterall, it's not fun just to be led by the nose into a mod. take the hook and move on to Encounter One. This guy was actively role-playing (which was more than what the other players were doing); why punish that? The player made an active choice, and the judge punished him for it. Of course, by "punished" we mean, he followed the action to the next logical reaction. The judge role-played in response. That's not being a bad judge. That's role-playing your NPCs. :) It was essentially an RP-TPK. The player made some bad decisions on how to play out the encounter, and as a result, the party failed the mod. This happens in combat all the time, why should it be different in a role-playing arena?
Fleetfang 01-09-07, 06:24 PM	{off topic} Vernon, Glad you support him, too. Of course, I'd have expected no less from the Verbobonc "Live-With-the-Consequences" Triad. ;) The judge was Rudy K. He was running Dwarven Dawn, I think. Or else Minions. We'll both be coming down for WinterWar, so you can slap him on the back (or just slap him around) then. If you want more details on the actual event as it happened, he's the guy to ask. Oh, and in case you're curious, artwork for the WW ARs is coming along. Look for something next week. Unfortunately, it's easier for me to sneak onto message boards than draw dwarven axes while I'm at work. Hope all is well with the new family, -Brian T. {/off topic}
SgtHulka 01-09-07, 10:26 PM	It would be nice if you tried to keep in mind people who prefer other types of adventures, but I make notes of all specific, foccused, constructive feedback for future consideration when reviewing adventures. If people regularly complain about a lack of motivation or an abundance of patron appearances that strain belief, I note to caution authors about them in the future, and have them changed if at all possible. That doesn't include a blanket "no more investigative/hackfest/role-play/whatever" adventures. Such feedback-requests are simply not going to be implemented. I happen to disagree that it is entirely up to the player to create characters who have motivations for every single circumstance. And I do believe it is the responsibility of the authors to maintain a level of virsimilitude in their choice of motivations, not just as "hooks", but from interview A to interview B to interview C. This is what I refer to as being "in a minority of one." I think the substance of our argument can end there by agreeing to disagree, and you have effectively won the argument since you are clearly in the majority. And even if you hadn't won the argument, of course you have the right to ignore any and all criticism that doesn't, personally, ring true to you. However, that doesn't make me feel any less disrespected here. Samwise, I've valued your posts on these boards for some time...I think I remember reading your posts years ago on the Greyhawk World board. Clearly, you read my first post in this thread as an attack on yourself and LG authors, rather than an attempt to offer constructive criticism. My second post was definitely defensive. But I also don't think I'm imagining things when I assume you're personally attacking me with comments like "It would be nice if you tried to keep in mind people who prefer other types of adventures". Never did I suggest that everyone hates investigative mods. In fact, I noted that in most polls I've read investigative mods lead the pack. But,the title of this thread is "How to make investigative mods more fun". The creator of the thread admitted he grinds his teeth during them. Forgive me for not realizing I should have read the thread as "How to make investigative mods more fun for people who already enjoy them." I chose characters from literature as examples because they are a convenient reference point that everyone has access to. Not everyone has access to Joe Schmoe's Gnome Rogue. Of course characters in literature are the individual focus of the stories they appear in. That is so self-evident that I honestly can't figure out why you would go to such pains labelling them as "loner" characters unless you were attempting to label me, by extension, as an anti-social player. I take immense offense at that implication.
Samwise 01-10-07, 12:47 AM	I happen to disagree that it is entirely up to the player to create characters who have motivations for every single circumstance. It is your character. Nobody but you gets to decide what does or not motivate your character. And I do believe it is the responsibility of the authors to maintain a level of virsimilitude in their choice of motivations, not just as "hooks", but from interview A to interview B to interview C. Yes it is. I fail to see how that includes providing a motivation for every conceivable character. And even if you hadn't won the argument, of course you have the right to ignore any and all criticism that doesn't, personally, ring true to you. I don't "win" arguments by a vote, majority or otherwise. I don't even care to. That is not my intention. And I don't ignore comments that don't ring true to me, or constructive suggestions. I do ignore rude comments, or ones that include blanket requests to not do a particular style of adventure. Clearly, you read my first post in this thread as an attack on yourself and LG authors, rather than an attempt to offer constructive criticism. My second post was definitely defensive. Not at all. I just viewed it as not considering a number of factors relative to the campaign requirements. Specifically: You asked that motivations be provided for every character type. As I've said, this is simply not feasible. You suggested a particular archetype you enjoy. I noted that this archetype simply wasn't suitable for a campaign like LG. This doesn't mean you are "wrong" in wanting those things, just that the campaign can not provide them. But I also don't think I'm imagining things when I assume you're personally attacking me with comments like "It would be nice if you tried to keep in mind people who prefer other types of adventures". No, that is directed to everyone who dislikes investigative adventures. I've heard just as many complaints about people who despise the lack of actual role-playing in LG adventures. Or who loathe the way LG caters to power gamers. Or criticism of any of a number of other elements. And the answer to all of those comes down to the same thing: 1. We can't make everyone happy with every adventure. 2. No matter how much you dislike some element like that, don't ask that it be eliminated. I chose characters from literature as examples because they are a convenient reference point that everyone has access to. Not everyone has access to Joe Schmoe's Gnome Rogue. Of course characters in literature are the individual focus of the stories they appear in. That is so self-evident that I honestly can't figure out why you would go to such pains labelling them as "loner" characters unless you were attempting to label me, by extension, as an anti-social player. I take immense offense at that implication. I never suggested you were. If you read what I wrote again, you will note that I highlighted the difference between books and games. The two are simply not equitable. While it is understandable that people base their characters on those in books, and many elements of the rule books even encourage this, in the end it is simply a bad idea because of those differences. In this case, you selected characters to highlight the personality you want to give your characters, and what motivations of theirs should be appealed to in adventures. My replies were solely focused on how and why their motivations, in the books, do not translate well to LG. That is it. I cut my teeth on ERB and John Carter. I hope no one assumes that means I desire to lead an army to slaughter tens of thousands of rival Martians so I can be named Jeddak of Jeddaks and get the Princess. (Or even tens of rival Triad members to be named Circle of Circlers and get the Game Chick.) The most you may infer from that is I think you are too well read, and that puts you at a disadvantage in dealing with the game. Why? You know who Cugel is. I know who Cugel is. I doubt more than 1 in 10 of the other regular players of the campaign does. Indeed, I'd put it closer to 1 in 100. That makes your chances of finding someone who knows what character motivations you are talking about very low. And that means you will have trouble in a campaign that has to assume that most of the players have little experience with genre fiction written before 1970. (If that far back, 1980 is probably a better date.) How do I know this? I learned it the hard way developing the first major plots for Keoland. Very few people picked up my oh so subtle allusions and genre based foreshadowing I slipped in. They loved it three years later when it all fell into place, but for the first two years all I got were blank stares and constant requests to please, finally, maybe, could Keoland have an actual plotline this year. And yes, I thought it was absurd too when a person who did understand what I was getting at explained this to me. But it fit the situation, and when I began changing how things were presented (or more precisely put the presentation in the hands of someone who could present it better) everything began to fall into place. So again, I perceived no attack, and I made no assumptions. All I was trying to do was explain why what you wanted in the game wasn't feasible and why the character archetypes you chose wouldn't work as well within the structure of the campaign. That's all.
gomeztoo 01-10-07, 03:05 AM	(Or even tens of rival Triad members to be named Circle of Circlers and get the Game Chick.) Discussion on the Game Chick feat go in another threat :D I have no idea who Cugel is. But I know who Hildebrand Brom is, and I bet you don't... He wouldn't work very well in LG either, btw. It doesn't matter anyway. I don't think it is the difference between books and games that makes the problem, but the genericness (?) of the campaign. When I write a scenario i cannot think of how I should write it so it caters to Cugel or Hildebrand Brom. I have to think of how it would cater to the majority of gamers (or the majorit yof gamers in my region/metaregion) which is tough enough. I know Triads that include PC names in scenario hooks - PC X gets plot hook A. Seems a bad idea to me. It works in a home game. But not in LG.
Madfox11 01-10-07, 08:10 AM	No hornet's nest here. I mean, this event happened. They booked it the way they did, and the judge made a call. Right or wrong, it was his situation to deal with. The hornet's nest lies in me pointing out there are no rules preventing switching of PCs during the Introduction of an adventure. Not in me disagreeing partially on the example which is also based on incomplete information. Lets be clear: I don't know the details of this specific situation, but the impression was given that the other players were inexperienced to D&D and I presume to the convention circuit as well. Do I think the DM was wrong in refusing to give the mission to the stubborn PC? Not really, I might deal with it differently, but it is fair enough decision. Would I as a DM interevene if a single player walks over the other players present at the table, especially new players? Yes. I don't know whether the DM checked if the other players had a different opinion, or even realized they could intervene. I know from experience that some players have a real hard time protesting to others, especially the hard core role-players who do have a tendency to dominate the game (not out of malice, but simply because of enthausiasm). If the other players went along, and supported the stubborn PC actively it becomes something different, but if the other players just kept their mouth shut and watched, I would verify whether it was shyness or acceptance that kept them silent. It is one thing to let one PC deal with the consequences of their own actions, it is another to let others suffer for it. Granted, sometimes it is impossible to do so*, but in this particular case it was very easy by just not granting any AR at all and never booking the event. Like I said though, I have no idea what the DM did, and if he is a good DM as you say, than I suspect he did make sure the other players agreed with the stubborn PC's actions. In which case it I have no objections at all to handing out the AR with 0 gp (although I would have given the RP xp ;)).
gomeztoo 01-10-07, 08:24 AM	Yeah, there are lots of players that just LOVE to hear themselves talk... *whistles innocently while scribing his next speech*
Lupo 01-10-07, 10:01 AM	Yeah, there are lots of players that just LOVE to hear themselves talk... *whistles innocently while scribing his next speech* i would have sworn, it was an impromptu address :P ciao martin m.
SgtHulka 01-10-07, 01:42 PM	I do ignore rude comments, or ones that include blanket requests to not do a particular style of adventure. I take that to mean you think my original post was rude. I'm not sure why you felt that way, but I will try to be more sensitive in that respect in the future. Specifically: You asked that motivations be provided for every character type. As I've said, this is simply not feasible. That's not how I read your reply, nor how I read the posters that continued to pile on afterward. I will take your word for it and assume that you intended no disprespect. I stand corrected. [QUOTEYou suggested a particular archetype you enjoy. I noted that this archetype simply wasn't suitable for a campaign like LG. [/QUOTE] My intention in what follows is not to be rude, merely to clarify your position and offer constructive criticism. I'm still not sure why you consider these archetypes unsuitable. If it is because they are not motivated by altruism, perhaps you should consider removing "Chaotic Neutral" from the campaign standards. If it is because you find "mercenary" characters too difficult to motivate, I am truely baffled. If you say a particular character is unsuitable for the campaign, that's more than just a single player's opinion. That's an official's opinion. It implies that I and several of my friends are doing something "wrong" in this campaign. If what you're really saying is "this type of character is unsuitable for certain types of mods" I will breathe a sigh of relief and continue playing the way I've been playing...metagaming through those mods in which I find my character improperly motivated and role-playing through the ones where he is. The following is not addressed to Samwise, but to other posters on this thread. Much as others have suggested, Characters may be motivated by things other than gold or altruism...thrills, for example. I tihnk someone mentioned a thief who steals for the thrill of it all. But these characters are still "mercenary". They're still adventuring for a reason other than helping people. And from my perspective, they're still unmotivated to look for the missing children unless it is clear that looking for them will lead to a thrilling adventure. Quite to the contrary, most investigative mods offer no such clarity. There is little to suggest to the character that such an investigation will lead to anything more than a thorough search of the woods, where perhaps the children will be found lost, cold and hungry. The player, of course, knows that it will lead to thrilling adventures, because he or she is at a table with other players and a judge and knows they are about to play a mod. That's exactly what I'm referring to as "metagaming" through the mod.
Samwise 01-10-07, 02:09 PM	I take that to mean you think my original post was rude. I'm not sure why you felt that way, but I will try to be more sensitive in that respect in the future. Again, not your post. That was a general statement of what I don't pay attention, not a specific "I'm ignoring you because . . ." That's not how I read your reply, nor how I read the posters that continued to pile on afterward. I will take your word for it and assume that you intended no disprespect. I stand corrected. I can't speak for others, just my own reply and intentions. My intention in what follows is not to be rude, merely to clarify your position and offer constructive criticism. I'm still not sure why you consider these archetypes unsuitable. If it is because they are not motivated by altruism, perhaps you should consider removing "Chaotic Neutral" from the campaign standards. If it is because you find "mercenary" characters too difficult to motivate, I am truely baffled. It is a combination of elements. First, for Cugel specifically, as I noted, his adventures are primarily based on overt abuse by and for him. For most others, they are generally too "literary focus" characters to work well in groups. A hook that would motivate them would motivate only them, and assume the rest of the party comes along solely because of that focus character's charisma. If you say a particular character is unsuitable for the campaign, that's more than just a single player's opinion. That's an official's opinion. It implies that I and several of my friends are doing something "wrong" in this campaign. Again, it is a combination of things. And I am primarily speaking from experience and knowledge of the RPGA and campaign rules, not making official declarations. First, some material is not suitable for the game or the campaign. Originally this did in fact include specific mercenary contracts. You could be paid at the end but the patron wouldn't overtly hire you for cash. Obviously the difficulties with this caused it to be abandoned. Second, despite that, the campaign does include an active statement that characters are intended to be heroes. That places other limits on what hooks will be offerered. Third, I don't deal with "wrong" in terms of player preferences. In fact, I despise the concept, and routinely object to any derogatory comments based on gaming style. I happen to be a very egregious power gamer, with a love of gratuitous hacking and FFAs, and I take any sneering at that quite poorly. That doesn't however exclude comments on effectiveness, or whether or not the campaign will meet the requirements of every player. (Note that please. I chose that phrasing deliberately. "Whether or not the campaign will meet the requirements of every player," not "Whether you are playing right.") And thus to: If what you're really saying is "this type of character is unsuitable for certain types of mods" I will breathe a sigh of relief and continue playing the way I've been playing...metagaming through those mods in which I find my character improperly motivated and role-playing through the ones where he is. I expect that yes, that type of character is unsuitable for certain types of adventures. I will go further and suggest that "certain type" comprises the majority of the adventures produced for LG. This may mean that in fact, the campaign can not meet your requirements. That doesn't mean the campaign is no good, or you are doing anything "wrong." It is just an observation and an attempt to explain why you are encountering so many disconnects in finding motivations in adventures.
smerwin29 01-10-07, 02:47 PM	The following is not addressed to Samwise, but to other posters on this thread. Much as others have suggested, Characters may be motivated by things other than gold or altruism...thrills, for example. I tihnk someone mentioned a thief who steals for the thrill of it all. But these characters are still "mercenary". They're still adventuring for a reason other than helping people. I think most people are going to associate "mercenary" with money, since that is essentially what the word means: doing something for money that you wouldn't otherwise do. And there are hundreds or thousands of other reasons you can give your character for taking otherwise unattractive "jobs" that fall somewhere between altruism and cold cash without resorting to metagaming. Or metagaming works too! And from my perspective, they're still unmotivated to look for the missing children unless it is clear that looking for them will lead to a thrilling adventure. Quite to the contrary, most investigative mods offer no such clarity. There is little to suggest to the character that such an investigation will lead to anything more than a thorough search of the woods, where perhaps the children will be found lost, cold and hungry. "Although I know I seem a cold, uncaring axe-for-hire, but when I was but a wee lad I myself got lost in the woods. Thought I was going to die, I did. Walking through a dark forest still gives even me, a cold-blooded mercenary, the chills. Lets go find those lads and lasses." The player, of course, knows that it will lead to thrilling adventures, because he or she is at a table with other players and a judge and knows they are about to play a mod. That's exactly what I'm referring to as "metagaming" through the mod. Hopefully we have all had the great joy of playing in a home campaign, where the adventures were created by a great DM specifically for us. All the motivations are built-in, and we can't wait, because character development is tied so inherently to the adventures. For those of us who have had that pleasure, an organized play campaign is tough. I agree with what you have said above, but it is not just investigative adventures that are like that. Any adventure, from the most subtle to the biggest, brawliest interactive have to start somewhere. Regional and met-regional writers have the luxury of being able to fall back on plotlines that are potentially more near-and-dear to the characters, while Core writers are trying to account for everyone. I always try to give a variety of hooks that players and DMs can work with, but I realize that it's impossible, particularly when a character's personality is so well defined but narrow. Even the Oerth's biggest mercenary, who will only lift an axe if there is a great deal of gold promised, can have deeper and more complex goals and agendas than just "pay up or I walk." This sort of deepening of character, the kind that comes from the interaction between the vision of the character and the world in which the character "lives," can bring a great deal of fun to the table. (And that doesn't mean, Mr. Hulka sir, that you don't do it. Those are just general observations.) Shawn
SgtHulka 01-10-07, 04:11 PM	... but it is not just investigative adventures that are like that. True enough. I think the reason I pointed it out in investigative mods is because they are the most challenging to motivate because they are, by definition, mysteries. It is one thing to say "stop the cultists" in a bust down the door, brawl-it-out adventure, and it's quite another to say that when the whole point of the module is to discover that it's cultists and you're not supposed to know until the end that they're behind it all. Perhaps what's lost in my commentary, and why my first post was perceived as rude, is that I don't believe all investigation modules have that problem. Some authors have done a fantastic job of motivating the investigations. And my hat is off to them, because I think it's especially difficult in those types of mods, and it requires especially creative thinking. And, of course, you provide a perfectly reasonable motivation for any character, even if it was tongue-in-cheek. The only problem is, after a few years, you may find your character has a weak spot for children lost in the woods, for murder victims missing their lower jaws, for homeless commoners whose houses burned down, for escaped slaves, and, perhaps most of all, for those poor inn-keepers who keep finding their patrons murdered. By sixth level you have discovered that your character's father was an inn-keeper drummed out of business do to a tenant's murder, whose family was then left homeless due to a fire, who then got lost while trying to make a go of living in the woods, only to end up murdered with his jaw cut off. A rough childhood, indeed! ;) That said, I have to admit that's exactly the kind of character that would be hilarious fun to play.
kenobi65 01-10-07, 04:38 PM	That said, I have to admit that's exactly the kind of character that would be hilarious fun to play. Yeah...no matter what bizarre situation presents itself, it always reminds him of some tragedy that befell a family member. :D "The victim's lower jaw is missing...my uncle Chet was born without a lower jaw!"
solbergb 01-10-07, 05:06 PM	Heh...that's like how my Favored Soul blames everything on his Patron deity. "of COURSE the cultists choose now to open a gate to Acheron. *I* was in town, having a nice time and my stupid patron deity gave events a push because he was bored."
chesspiece 01-10-07, 07:30 PM	Yeah...no matter what bizarre situation presents itself, it always reminds him of some tragedy that befell a family member. :D "The victim's lower jaw is missing...my uncle Chet was born without a lower jaw!" I think you took a page from the Keyser Söze school of PC backgrounds. :eek: Or the PC is just one of those guys that loves to top things that they hear / come across. "Lower jaw - that's nothing! I used the Head of Vecna once." :rolleyes: RP opportunities abound!
gomeztoo 01-11-07, 03:30 AM	"of COURSE the cultists choose now to open a gate to Acheron. *I* was in town, having a nice time and my stupid patron deity gave events a push because he was bored." Hmm. Ralishaz?
Madfox11 01-11-07, 08:21 AM	Yeah...no matter what bizarre situation presents itself, it always reminds him of some tragedy that befell a family member. :D "The victim's lower jaw is missing...my uncle Chet was born without a lower jaw!" Now where have I seen that before... o yeah, Gremlins ;)