Way, way back in the long, long ago, TSR began releasing products to support the core Dungeons & Dragons and Advanced Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks. These products were labeled "Adventure Modules" and they differed greatly in content, design, and reception. Some were cherished and adored. Others were hated and reviled. All were accepted as "adventures". I have long believed that the varied response to these products was not only due to personal preference, but also due to the actual design elements of these "adventures", some of which were not really adventures at all.
If you break down the content of these "Adventure Modules" you will actually see they are two types of products---adventures and supplements. For purposes of this article, an adventure is a series of outlined events that happen without character intervention, and in fact the outcome of these events can only change through the actions of the player characters. A supplement on the other hand is a location, with plot hooks, encounters, and places to explore and perhaps even things implied to be going on in the background, none of which requires the PCs to do anything.
Take a look at some of the classic adventures of the past: Night's Dark Terror, Curse of Xanathon, Assassin's Knot, Saltmarsh Series, Ravenloft, Red Arrow Black Shield.
Curse of Xanathon fits the criteria of an adventure. Badly. It's a horrible railroad that forces the PCs against a high priest who is unkillable the first time they encounter him. Only after they are forced to run from him (another railroad) do they learn how to kill him. Everything in it points to bad adventure design, and yet it is still classified as an adventure because the PCs are required to DO something to further the course of events.
A much better example of an adventure done right is Night's Dark Terror which has the PCs traipsing all over the Duchy of Karameikos trying to stop a magic-user who is uncovering the secrets of ancient magic. If the PCs do nothing, this mage and his organization of slavers could potentially become very powerful.
Ravenloft is another good example. The PCs are transported to the demiplane (which some might call a railroad) and must DO something in order to escape. Sure, they can bounce around in the village and forest, killing vampires and werewolves and such, but pretty soon Strahd is going to come looking for them which gives it a sense of urgency that is not present in a supplement.
Assassin's Knot and the Saltmarsh series involve investigative work, with consequences for inaction (or incompetence). In Saltmarsh, if the PCs do nothing, the coastal village will eventually be overrun by sahuagin.
Red Arrow, Black Shield involves the PCs traveling from country to country in an attempt to rally support for their army. Each country swayed commits troops to the final mass battle. Again, the PCs are required to DO something to complete the adventure.
Were these the greatest adventures ever written? Of course not. At the time, I don't think the folks at TSR really had a clear idea as to what made a good commercial adventure which is why you see dungeon crawls, investigations, wilderness treks, etc. all labeled as "adventure modules" and plot hook railroads accepted as standard fare. I think if they would have been classified better and a little more thought given to player motivations, some of them might have been better received.
Now let's talk about a few supplements: Tomb of Horrors, Keep on the Borderlands, Isle of Dread, Temple of Elemental Evil, Castle Amber.
Tomb of Horrors not an adventure? Keep on the Borderlands not an adventure? Isle of Dread not an adventure? Madness!!! We've all run those adventures countless times!
But hear me out. As I said above, an adventure is more than just a mapped location with some plot hooks and encounters. There needs to be some sense of urgency, some sense that the PCs affect a course of events through their action or inaction.
Take a good long and honest look at the Keep on the Borderlands. You get the keep, some encounters in the wilderness, and of course, the Caves of Chaos. These are places to adventure in. They are not adventures in and of themselves. There is no reason for the PCs to get involved in anything happening in the text or on the map and there are no consequences for action or inaction. The encounters are mostly static. The PCs can raid the Caves and return to the keep at will, then return to the Caves, and although there are some minor suggestions for what the monsters might logically do to adapt, there is no sense of urgency for the PCs to do anything.
Compare this to the Lankhmar: City of Adventure supplement (or my own Guidebook to the City of Dolmvay). Like the Keep on the Borderlands, each has mapped locations, plot hooks, and encounters that set the stage for memorable adventures. However, none of these products are adventures in and of themselves. The PCs are not required to DO anything. They can wander around, pick fights, explore locations, etc., however, if they decide to do nothing, there are no consequences for inaction.
Can you have adventures using the Keep on the Borderlands, Tomb of Horrors, etc.? Of course you can! In fact, they are designed that way. However, again, that does not make them adventures. Anything you say about adventuring in the Keep on the Borderlands you can just as easily say about Lankhmar or Dolmvay.
Tomb of Horrors is an extreme example of this. It's basically a high-powered dungeon without the surrounding maps and encounters to give it context (i.e. a Caves of Chaos with no Keep). If the PCs leave the Tomb, no big deal. Nothing happens. Isle of Dread is the same way. You have an excellent map with tons of interesting locations and encounters, but if the PCs decide to leave the island, well it'll still be there if they wish to return. Castle Amber is basically just a romp through a magical castle (and can be considered something of a railroad as well).
Temple of Elemental Evil is basically a crawl through a large dungeon although one could argue that the evil rising in the old temple gives it an implied sense of urgency that pushes the module towards the "adventure" category.
I'd like to point out my own Blood Moon Rising adventure for a clear example of what I classify as an adventure. It is set during a festival. There are a number of events that take place during the festival, some of which surround the opening of a demon gate. On the last night of the festival, a host of demons will be unleashed.
That is the outline of the events that occur if the PCs decide to stay in their rooms with the covers pulled over their heads. Now, the kicker is that the PCs can disrupt this whole chain of events by getting involved, locating the demon gate, and closing it which prevents the demons from being unleashed on that final night. If they act: they save the village. If they do nothing: demons.
So in closing, a series of events that only vary with PC intervention. That is a published adventure. A location with plot hooks and encounters. That is a supplement.
Knights of Dark Renown (book review) - I've read Knights of Dark Renown by David Gemmell because of a recommendation from my friend Jens, after reading The Blade Itself - which we both disliked....
34 minutes ago
Didn't we already have the term "location-based adventure" for what Mr. Spahn is calling "supplements"? When I hear "supplement" I think of an extension of the core rules. I don't see the benefit of trying to redefine terms that have long been established, when there's already a term out there that fits the bill.ReplyDelete
To me, 'adventure' means something for the characters to play in, and 'supplement' means something for the game master to add to their game. So I agree with Joseph.ReplyDelete
Unearthed Arcana is a supplement. Keep on the Borderlands is an adventure module.ReplyDelete
Location-based adventure does not fit products such as City State of the Invincible Overlord or Lankhmar. Like Keep on the Borderlands, these are camReplyDelete
Campaign supplements. Rules supplements like Unearthed Arcana are something entirely different.ReplyDelete
As to redefining terminology, I feel that the terminology is too broad and that leads to unfocused products and consumer confusion and ultimately dissatisfaction. If I'm looking for a ready made "adventure" I don't necessarily want to buy a megadungeon and vice versa. On the practical side, having a clear idea of the scope of the product you're trying to create also helps keep you focused.
***posting from my mobile so message was broken up. Sorry!
The term definitely covers CSotIO and Lankhmar, since they are both locations that are the stage for adventures. Using Supplement to label these would be overloading the term to an unsuitable degree. Perhaps I can suggest Setting or Sandbox as more apt terms.ReplyDelete
I've never heard those products ever referred to as adventures, location based or otherwise. City setting supplements is the term I've always heard. Calling those products adventures would seem to create more confusion. Sandbox would work if it was a more widely accepted term but I don't think it would play well in a title. Setting implies a greater scope such as a region or world.ReplyDelete
In terms of the article then, whatever we end up calling it, would you agree that KotB and Lankhmar should be classified under the same term? If not, what in your opinion sets them apart?
In 40 years, I've never heard the term "city setting supplement". Google comes up with nothing. KotB describes a sandbox, or regional setting. Lankhmar is a city setting or urban sandbox. I fail to see why "Setting" can only mean a vast area of continental scope. How about "Adventure Setting"?ReplyDelete
Another term to look at is 'Sourcebook'.
RPGNow has an entire category dedicated to City Supplements with a whole list of products like I'm describing so I don't think the term is new or unique. http://www.rpgnow.com/browse.php?keywords=City+supplement+&x=23&y=11&author=&artist=&pfrom=&pto=ReplyDelete
On the main however, we agree that other than content, KotB and Lankhmar are essentially the same type of product. The only difference is while I lump them as supplements, you lump them as adventures.
Yeah that's not what I hear when I hear the word 'Supplement'ReplyDelete
Yes, "city supplement" I have heard, but that's not the term you used. I'm still trying to figure out what is being supplemented in these instances. Clearly, a rules supplement is supplementing the rules. If the material is expanding a core campaign, then I'd understand using "supplement" for added setting books. Lankhmar *is* the setting. Yes, there's stuff outside in Nehwon, but the focus is Lankhmar, so it's clearly a setting, not a supplement.ReplyDelete
Or just go with Module for the lot. :)
Sourcebook perhaps? I can see that covering better ground. My intent is to make a distinction between a product where the adventure is written out as opposed to a product where the adventure is implied.ReplyDelete
Just a disclaimer, this article is part of a larger book on adventure design that I'm working on that will contain my take on tips, observations, and philosophies for designing adventures. I find that having clearly defined terms helps me focus on what type of product I'm creating and the term "adventure module" is far to broad and ambiguous.
The City State or Lankhmar or Greyhawk are settings. One might have individual adventures set within them (like the "Falcon" series for the city of Greyhawk, or "Thieves of Lankhmar"). Again, I don't see the need to create or reinvent terminology for things that already have simple and readily understood labels.ReplyDelete
Well Joseph by your definition then Keep on the Borderlands is also a setting. This is mainly what I'm getting at. There needs to be a way to tell types of products apart. Lumping them all as "adventures" is doing the consumer a disservice. Let me put it this way. Say I'm new to gaming. I buy Nights Dark Terror and love it. It throws the PCs into the action. Presents a series if preplanned events (which may or may not be encountered) and a series of preplanned locations (which may or may not be explored). You have NPCs with clearly presented goals that proactive PCs have a chance of disrupting and plenty of ways for the PCs to do that.ReplyDelete
Great! Then you go buy KotB expecting the same kind of setup and don't get anywhere near the depth or detail, with no overarching series of events and no direction for the PCs to go except the nebulous mass slaughter at the CoC.
Does that make KotB bad? Heck no! It's awesome. But those two products are COMPLETELY different in scope yet they are both labeled "adventures". Can you see why that could be confusing?
A lot of people strongly like or dislike certain types of adventures and most of the time it boils down to whether it's event driven or exploration driven. If you know what type of product it is up front it will be easier to decide whether or not it will be right for you. Saying "it's an adventure module" really tells you little about its design.