Lately, I've been reconsidering the amount of work I put in my campaigns.
As an example, let's talk dungeons. No matter if you create your own, use a published module or random tables, I expect you to have a minimum knowledge of the thing you're running.
The problem is an interesting dungeon has lots of content - and, while the players will probably never see half of it, the GM has to at least give it some consideration.
It is not just the ignored rooms and secret doors that were never found - it is also the NPC with relevant information that the PCs immediately attack, the writings in languages no one speaks*, random encounters/events that do not happen, maybe even the villain monologue that gets interrupted, etc.
[*For example, I ran Tamoachan the other day and it has SEVERAL writings and dialogues in "Olman" or whatever. Nowhere in the adventure summary I found any warning for the GM about that. I might have missed it. I used both the 1e and the 5e version].
This is what I call this "unused parts".
It seems that the DM will always have a lot more work than the players - the fun part, for me, is that during the actual game (my favorite part) I can sit back and see what the PCs do, as a neutral referee, without having to author anything.
While I love the sandbox format, I think it encourages "unused parts". A sandbox needs huge unexplored parts, and the freedom to allow PCs to go where they want. I takes the GM a lot of work to create or get acquainted with an entire setting.
Here is an example from X I've seen today (from @ericbabe3):
The PCs decide to follow the main corridor, found the treasure behind a secret door, and left. All the work the GM had choosing this module and reading it beforehand was wasted.
I definitely LIKE the fact that the PCs can do that.
But how to deal with all those unused parts?
Let's see.
- Force them on the PCs (quantum ogre). This is just putting each encounter/trap/room you want to have in your game in front of the PCs, no matter which door they choose. I dislike this - it makes PC's choices meaningless and ruins any sense of surprise for me, the GM, as I know exactly what will happen.
- Randomize everything (random ogre). Roll 1d6 to put a random trap in front of the PCs, no matter which door they choose. Like the example above, it makes PC's choices mostly meaningless, and you still have a few traps/encounters that will simply not happen.
- Talk to the players beforehand. In my sandbox, the PCs can go anywhere, but I need at least a vague idea on where they are going. I've scattered several dungeons around the map, but I can't read - let alone remember - each one. So I just ask before the next session about where the PCs intend to go.
This is harder to do with dungeons. Depending on the size of your dungeon and your sessions, maybe you can read only a few levels beforehand.
- Minimum prep. Just do the bare minimum: give a quick glance to the module and read the entirety of the room IF the PCs get there. This is what I've been doing, but it has led to some confusion on occasion, when the module is not clear enough and I'd need more time to understand. For example, I was once running a module that gave the PCs an "Amulet of the Phoenix" that was simply not described anywhere. I had to improvise in a case of life or death (that deserves a post in the future). Later I found out there was a "Talisman of the Phoenix" or something in the magic item list.
Another example: There are huge unmapped areas in my sandbox that are simply called "giant territory", "goblin territory", and "undead territory". No dungeons in most of these areas - I'll detail them when the PCs get closer, but they at least have a vague idea on what to expect and can make meaningful choices.
- Zooming in an out. Another way to think of this is "zooming in and out". Ideally, modules should be prepared in such a manner. You should be able to get the clear picture from a sentence or two, preferentially in bold, and the have other paragraphs describing what may happen if the players do X or Y.
Any important secrets or details must also be emphasized/ marked to make sure the GM will not miss them.
Likewise, for a overland map, with hexes or otherwise, you could have brief descriptions of each are and then a more detailed description - with a corresponding map - later on.
I know there are several attempts to do that in OSR games. I never read a module that really stands out in this manner, but I'm always searching! Have you?
- Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. This is especially important if you're creating your own stuff.
Reduce: make it terse, keep prep to a minimum. Don't fill all the details, just create whatever you want to inspire you. "This room has two sleeping ogres, Torg and Gurps, not aggressive but starting to get hungry". If the PCs kill them while they sleep, you haven't wasted much details.
Reuse: have recurring NPCs and factions, and let they repeat their tactics/traps/behavior sometimes. Let the PCs go back and forth in your wilderness maps. PCs usually need a home base that will be more detailed than other cities.
Some times, the PCs will enter the same dungeon multiple times (although it is useful to consider how the dungeon changes as they come and go). In my latest "haunted castle" adventure, the undead simply rose again every night.
Recycle. Traps/rooms/encounters that are cool and unused can be kept for later. This is not a "quantum ogre" thing. The PCs must have the option of ignoring it again. You have to deliberately change where the thing is placed, and you have to do it carefully - the new place must make a last some sense.
Let me know in the comments if you have any other methods to deal with unused parts!
I think you've nailed it here. The "reuse" part deserves some special attention. It seems most published adventures include dungeons and other sites which are meant to be explored only once; the prevailing design ethos seems to be to include only what's needed for the prescribed storyline, and make damn sure the players find it. In contrast, old modules like The Keep on the Borderlands encouraged reuse: players would make multiple expeditions to the Caves of Chaos and the surrounding wilderness, possibly with completely different parties of characters. It not only made it worthwhile for the DM to become fully familiar with the material, it was great for campaign continuity without artificially imposed plots and storylines.
ReplyDeleteThanks! Yeah, this is a good point; this is an interesting difference between "one use" dungeons and "reusable" sandboxes.
Delete