Pages

Saturday 26 March 2016

The Noble Art of Adventure Design

[Warning: spoilers for the Pathfinder modules Wake of the Watcher and House of the Beast below.]

So, recently, I've been reading through a stack of old Pathfinder adventure paths. The system is far too complex for my tastes, and the modules are always enormously padded, so I do a lot of skimming; but inside some of these baggy sixty-page monsters is a tight, punchy twelve-page adventure screaming to get out. Others, however, really do just feel like 50+ pages of nothing; and this blog post is my attempt to puzzle out both why this is, and why so few people seem to mind.

As a project in RPG adventure writing, the sheer scope of the Pathfinder Adventure Paths has probably never been equalled. One module per month for over a hundred months, all set in the same setting; seventeen-and-a-half campaigns and counting, each one going from level 1 all the way up to level 15 or beyond. It's all in there somewhere: wildernesses and dungeons, sandboxes and railroads, mysteries and murder-fests, ninjas and pirates. From my perspective, they can veer from 'almost usable as written' into 'completely worthless' and back again from one module to the next, but the editors and authors don't seem to recognise the shifts. My surprise is not that they don't happen to share my tastes in adventure design - why should they? - but that they seem to regard modules which, to me, seem so qualitatively different from one another as effectively interchangeable.

Two modules I read recently cast the matter into sharp relief: Wake of the Watcher, and House of the Beast. On the surface, Wake of the Watcher looks like much the more promising of the two: it's a Lovecraftian bonanza set in an Innsmouth-style village, featuring everything from crazy cultists to the Hounds of Tindalos, while House of the Beast is basically just a ruined temple full of gnolls. Wake of the Watcher is ostensibly an investigation, whereas House of the Beast presents itself as a straightforward kill-the-baddies dungeon bash. And yet Wake struck me as much the weaker of the two; so much so that while I'd happily run a scenario based on House (although not using the Pathfinder ruleset), I'm honestly not sure that there was anything in Wake which I could salvage for use in one of my own games. After some reflection, I think it mostly comes down to one factor: their relative levels of dynamism vs. stasis.


This sorceress never does seem to have any luck. Image from Wake of the Watcher.

Wake presents what, on paper, is a highly unstable situation: necromancers, Cthulhu cultists, Deep One knockoffs, Mi-Go brain-stealers, a haunted mansion, and a backwater village that's being deliberately kept in the dark about exactly where all the girls they keep giving up for 'fostering' are ending up. (Like The Hook Mountain Massacre, the module tries to avoid following through on its own premise here: by the time the PCs find the missing girls, they're all dead, so no-one actually needs to engage with the consequences of a lifetime of sexual exploitation.) But instead of throwing it all down in one huge storm of violence and horror and chaos and leaving the PCs to reap the whirlwind as best they can, the module assumes a completely linear approach: first the PCs go to the cult's temple and kill everything, then they go to the mansion and kill everything, then they go into the Deep One lair and kill everything, and finally they go to the Mi-Go base and kill everything, ultimately having a big fight with a big monster in order to get their hands on whatever damn thing it was they were looking for in the first place. The same sense of stasis pervades the individual encounters: most of the monsters just wait in their rooms until the PCs arrive, at which point they attack on sight and fight to the death. The whole thing reminds me of a World of Warcraft dungeon: a series of set-piece encounters positioned along a linear corridor. The locations might be impressive, the visuals might be cool, the fight might be challenging, the backstory might be good... but there's no free will, no room to manoeuvre, no chance to get off the rails. The only meaningful decisions to be made are tactical ones.

House, in contrast, presents what looks like a very stable and boring situation: there is a ruined temple, it's inhabited by gnolls, it's run by the Gnoll King, you need to kill him, the end. But scratch the surface, and there is so much stuff going on! There's been a recent slave revolt: one band of escaped slaves are currently hiding in an outbuilding, while another is barricaded into the tunnels under the temple. The shaman of a nearby troglodyte tribe, allied with the gnolls, has had his identity stolen by an evil shape-changing genie; the trogs have just found the body of their real shaman, and they are furious. The genie has no real loyalty to the gnoll king, and is using his disguise as cover for his attempts to find a secret treasure chamber hidden somewhere beneath the temple. The gnolls are living in fear of some strange whispering creature which is killing them one by one: this is actually a crazy goblin who thinks he's on a mission from God, and who assumes that the PCs have been sent to help him fulfill his sacred duty to kill the gnoll king. Every part of the situation is balanced in a kind of precarious equilibrium, just waiting for some outside influence (i.e. the PCs) to come along and push it all over into chaos.

Here she is again, in House of the Beast, clearly seconds away from yet another wardrobe malfunction...

The same sense of teetering on a tipping-point extends down into the individual encounters. The gnolls have captured an enormous scorpion to use as a source of poison, but they have no way of controlling it; if released it attacks the first thing it sees, and as a result it's obviously a resource waiting to be exploited by clever PCs. The gnolls are using giant, bad-tempered mutants as shock troops, but can only keep them in line by giving them regular sedative injections: I can think of a whole bunch of ways to exploit this just off the top of my head. (Swap the sedatives for poison! Swap the sedatives for stimulants! Pour their entire sedative supply out of the window! Drop the sedatives into the temple's water supply!) Of course, if your PCs are feeling uninspired, then any or all of these can become straightforward combat encounters: kill the goblin, kill the mutants, kill the scorpion, kill the trogs, and so on ad nauseam. But come on: giant angry mutants kept in line with sedative injections? If your PCs can't find a way to exploit that then I'd start to wonder whether they're even trying!

Now, these two ways of designing adventures seem to me to grow out of very different assumptions about what a session's play is supposed to look like. Wake clearly assumes that the point of the game is set-piece combat encounters, in which a group of powerful PCs with a range of special abilities attempt to overcome various groups of powerful enemies with special abilities of their own. Within this playstyle, the kind of dynamism which appears in House is actively undesirable, because it messes up the balance of the encounters: where's the fun in testing your tactical abilities in battle with a bunch of mutants if you've already rigged the outcome by tricking their handlers into accidentally poisoning them? If this is your paradigm, then the task of the adventure designer is simply to present you with a suitable sequence of appropriately challenging fight scenes, along with some pretence of a narrative to string them all together. House, on the other hand, seems to expect PCs to treat the game-world as a world, and to engage with it in a much more fluid and dynamic fashion. Like most OSRians, I prefer the latter; but what I'm slightly bewildered by is the fact that the editors and authors of Pathfinder don't really seem to recognise the difference at all. They sort-of understand the difference between railroads and sandboxes, and write about it in their module introductions, even if they're not very good at actually writing the latter. But they really seem to think that 'here is a place full of monsters, now go and kill them all' is functionally equivalent to 'here is a place full of seven kinds of craziness existing in precarious balance, now go and start poking things and see what happens', and that strikes me as a little odd.

Whenever I come across something in a Pathfinder module that I might like to use, I make a note. 'Ruined castle full of degenerate bird-men, ruled by a demon who fancies himself as a playwright and spends all day forcing them to stage his nonsensical dramas', for example, or 'opium-addled spider wizard seeks ancient knowledge from demon's library in the dungeon below, but can no longer distinguish between memories and hallucinations'. Weird little scenes which can be dropped into adventures with a minimum of fuss in order to create a good, memorable encounter, which could unfold in any number of directions based on the actions of the PCs, but are likely to be colourful and fun no matter what ends up happening. The better modules, like House, give me maybe eight or nine of these. The worse ones, like Wake, give me none. I can write my own dramatic combat scenes. Dramatic combat scenes are easy. 'The PCs are stranded on a burning boat when, suddenly, ninjas attack!' I could have thought of that myself, thanks. I'm much less sure I'd ever have come up with the demon playwright and his cast of degenerate bird-man 'actors' - and that, ultimately, is what I'm looking for in a published adventure. I just wish that Paizo could be as clear about which of their modules are dynamic situations as opposed to strings of set-piece fight scenes as they are about which of them are railroads or sandboxes.

And while I'm making wishes, I also wish they'd stop putting in trash fights and filler dungeons. Those are super lame.

And get that poor sorceress some underwear!

'Fifteen levels in and we still haven't found any? Not even a bra? Come on...'

12 comments:

  1. this is i suppose at the core dynamism between verbs and nouns, static and action, that bryce lynch constantly refers to. but i suppose that it has something to do with the system itself. pf has so many already inbuilt responses to different situations, mostly purely number-combat based, that players are almost goaded into something that is more akin to a card game than to a role-playing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, it's very similar to Bryce's point about using active verbs in encounter design. Personally I don't mind if an encounter is basically just sitting there, provided there are lots of ways in which the PCs can mess with it in order to produce dynamic outcomes; but the core idea is the same.

      And I'd agree that using a heavier system can incline adventure design towards static combat challenges. When just playing out a fight between PCs and monsters is a hugely involved tactical challenge, it's easy to start viewing those challenges as an end in themselves...

      Delete
  2. It sounds as though the things you're highlighting as desirable in House are mostly micro-level stuff rather than macro-level - a captured scorpion, a Goblin of Divine Retribution and so on are self-contained things rather than part of the high-level structure of the adventure.

    Classifications of adventures generally seem to focus on the macro-level stuff. If you asked me "is this game linear or sandbox" I'd expect to be able to answer that from an outline summary of the shape of it that would probably omit most of the details you highlight.

    So it doesn't greatly surprise me that this wouldn't be widely picked up on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They're not part of the high-level structure, but they have an enormous effect upon the actual business of play, to the extent that they are likely to seriously impact upon the useability of the modules themselves for at least some of their readers. And 'emphasis on tactical combat' vs. 'emphasis on dynamic exploration' doesn't seem like it would be *too* hard to flag up in product descriptions...

      Delete
  3. Have you found any link between adventure style and author? That might be one way of finding the wheat in the chaff...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Richard Pett is probably their best writer, from what I've read. James Jacobs and Greg Vaughan are also pretty good. But they all suffer from the same core problem of shoving in trash fights and filler dungeons as needed in order to let the PCs grind enough XP to reach the level required for the next bit of actual story...

      Delete
    2. i am afraid, in my experience, that it is logic of 3e and its derivatives. trash fights and static fights scenes are at the heart of their logic of advancement. thanks for recommending richard prett. i'll check his work out.

      Delete
    3. I wonder how it could be done better? Is it a core problem driven by the system like Opossum says could be culpable, or is it something more mundane like their publishing schedule? I imagine an Adventure Path produced by folks in the OSR/DIY community wouldn't have that sort of problem, but it'd be nice to be able to break down why that might be true.

      Delete
    4. Well, a lot of it is due to the Adventure Path format: six adventures designed to get you from level 1 to level 15+. That doesn't leave a lot of room for freedom: the plot has to be inflexible enough to make the movement from each book to the next all but unavoidable, which leads to some *very* heavy railroading, and the path as a whole has to push the PCs through enough encounters to get them to the desired level.

      An OSR-style adventure path would probably just be a series of locations with lots of weird things happening in them. First you explore the Creepy Forest of Strangeness; then you progress to the Towering Mountains of Awfulness; then on to the Lost City of Downright Peculiarity, and so on. No real plot, or rather *lots* of plots, all sprawling and interconnecting, leaving the PCs free to do more or less whatever they damn well like. My hope is that when Patrick Stuart finally finishes his projected adventure quartet (Deep Carbon Observatory, Broken Fire Regime, Littoral Storm Corsairs, and whatever he decides to name the last one), they will collectively form an OSR 'adventure path' of more-or-less this sort...

      Delete
    5. Yeah, that's true -- maybe I'm optimistic that the format would lead to some unforeseen creativity, like a limited poetic form. Mandatory combat (or vague quest rewards) as the only leveling mechanism in Pathfinder does complicate it, but like you say, even more situations rewarding intelligent play would be welcome.

      Come to think of it, the Angry GM's current megadungeon project could be a starting point/resource, because he's trying to restrict progress through the dungeon in a naturalistic way. It'd have trouble being published in an AP format, though, because he's fine with multiple methods past certain "gating" boundaries, and it's no good if PC cleverness means you need to reference a book that's not out yet.

      Delete
  4. Enjoyed your analysis, thanks. Do you post anywhere a listing of the better Pathfinders - like House - you've read and might recommend?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Someone asked the same question on the post after this one, and I suggested 'Souls For the Smugglers Shiv' by James Jacobs, 'Lords of Rust' by Nicholas Logue, and 'House of the Beast' by Tim Hitchcock. Since then I've also read 'Curse of the Lady's Light' by Mike Shel, which I also liked a lot: it's a dungeon where most of the NPCs are crazy, but in a 'delusional and easy to manipulate' way, rather than the (much more boring) 'irrationally aggressive' way that turns up much more often. 'The Haunting of Harrowstone' and 'Seven Days to the Grave' also have a lot of potential.

      Delete