... to attempt to write adventures that take advantage of the pecularities of a certain medium, and the differences and focus between certain editions?
Or at least the commonly-perceived differences?
I ask because as pre-playtest writing for Insect Shrine is complete, I'm turning my gaze towards The Grinding Gear. It's an adventure I've run for groups in two different cities, and at least in my mind it's something that wouldn't play at all the same in later edition games as it would in its intended early-edition. At least not how online commentators and Actual Plays portray the editions as being played. And that's why it's next on the list. It is a cruel one. It's not a grinder (it could be with careless play), but it is cruel, and both groups that made it out failed to find the treasure (during the initial foray, anyway).
Of course, one idea behind No Dignity in Death is that it was something that takes advantage of the humans-at-the-table factor of RPGs. I have this idea in my head that computer games don't deal with the human interaction factors so well (which is the focus of the first two parts of that module). Of course, I haven't played a computer RPG since Ultima 7b, so who knows.
So the question: is it possible to make an adventure without intrinsic heavy system content that really is edition-specific to where it doesn't port over to other editions or games without losing its core? If you think the answer is yes, do you have existing examples to back that opinion up?
And another question is, if it is possible, is it complete stupidity to do so, business-wise? Is it my job to highlight the strengths and differences of the clones and early D&D editions versus other fantasy games? Should I just try to make quality adventures, with stats for my favored games, that are also easily converted to Pathfinder or Burning Wheel or Warhammer or Call of Cthulhu (all of those are games that people have told me they've used to run my stuff) or whatever else?
Aresupporting the cause and doing what's best for business conflicting interests?
As far as Insect Shrine goes, at my normal Sunday game I had players wanting to set up some extra game time to do that module. If I can get that all together, then what I might do is run the "full" version with them, and then do Skype sessions with you internet people as one-shots for the different areas in the module. I have a feeling that the Death Frost Doom playtest, and the resulting pre-release chatter, is one reason why the module became an OSR-level hit.
Makes me think I should do a Skype game of Grinding Gear when the manuscript is finished, even if it is a complete and playtested adventure.
Or maybe "simple dungeon" is more appealing than "multi-session adventure," in which case Insect Shrine is in deep trouble (and so am I with all the money going into it :P) and Grinding Gear will be more than fine.
ahhh, don't mind me. I already know what I'm doing, that's not what I'm questioning. What I am questioning is how you're going to react to it.
Jitters jitters.
Or at least the commonly-perceived differences?
I ask because as pre-playtest writing for Insect Shrine is complete, I'm turning my gaze towards The Grinding Gear. It's an adventure I've run for groups in two different cities, and at least in my mind it's something that wouldn't play at all the same in later edition games as it would in its intended early-edition. At least not how online commentators and Actual Plays portray the editions as being played. And that's why it's next on the list. It is a cruel one. It's not a grinder (it could be with careless play), but it is cruel, and both groups that made it out failed to find the treasure (during the initial foray, anyway).
Of course, one idea behind No Dignity in Death is that it was something that takes advantage of the humans-at-the-table factor of RPGs. I have this idea in my head that computer games don't deal with the human interaction factors so well (which is the focus of the first two parts of that module). Of course, I haven't played a computer RPG since Ultima 7b, so who knows.
So the question: is it possible to make an adventure without intrinsic heavy system content that really is edition-specific to where it doesn't port over to other editions or games without losing its core? If you think the answer is yes, do you have existing examples to back that opinion up?
And another question is, if it is possible, is it complete stupidity to do so, business-wise? Is it my job to highlight the strengths and differences of the clones and early D&D editions versus other fantasy games? Should I just try to make quality adventures, with stats for my favored games, that are also easily converted to Pathfinder or Burning Wheel or Warhammer or Call of Cthulhu (all of those are games that people have told me they've used to run my stuff) or whatever else?
Aresupporting the cause and doing what's best for business conflicting interests?
As far as Insect Shrine goes, at my normal Sunday game I had players wanting to set up some extra game time to do that module. If I can get that all together, then what I might do is run the "full" version with them, and then do Skype sessions with you internet people as one-shots for the different areas in the module. I have a feeling that the Death Frost Doom playtest, and the resulting pre-release chatter, is one reason why the module became an OSR-level hit.
Makes me think I should do a Skype game of Grinding Gear when the manuscript is finished, even if it is a complete and playtested adventure.
Or maybe "simple dungeon" is more appealing than "multi-session adventure," in which case Insect Shrine is in deep trouble (and so am I with all the money going into it :P) and Grinding Gear will be more than fine.
ahhh, don't mind me. I already know what I'm doing, that's not what I'm questioning. What I am questioning is how you're going to react to it.
Jitters jitters.
"So the question: is it possible to make an adventure without intrinsic heavy system content that really is edition-specific to where it doesn't port over to other editions or games without losing its core? If you think the answer is yes, do you have existing examples to back that opinion up?"
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, yes, it is. For example, DFT lacks heavy system content, and yet its almost impossible to run it using, say, 3.5+ without compromising some of the basic elements of the module. I'll elaborate. DFT is a brutal example of a very old school type module that fucks your players' characters up.
To do this in, say, 3.5, you'd have to break the rules of said game, specifically those relating to encounter levels, challenge ratings, and such, which are written with the intent, that any obstacle should be "fair" on the characters, that is, the characters are expected to be able to overcome the obstacles presented within the module.
A comment from the peanut gallery: yes, it is possible, I think, to write modules that heavily favor one edition over another without including heavy rules content. It's all in how things are presented, what basic assumptions are made by the basic structure of the dungeon. However, this does not make one unplayable by another system. I see no reason why DFD couldn't be played using 3.5 or 4.0, though a little fiddling would have to be done and it might loose a bit in the translation as some of the harsher dangers are much toned down through the editions, but it'd work.
ReplyDeleteIs it your job to evangalize the benefits of one system over another? No, not really. Not unless you want to. Hell, wouldn't bother me, personally, if you did. But it might turn people off if you use the text of the game to attempt to intentionally shut out a certain style of play.
Don't know, really.
I say, keep doing what you're doing since you're obviously doing something right. People are buying and enjoying your stuff and that's a pretty good indicator of things.
>>But it might turn people off if you use the text of the game to attempt to intentionally shut out a certain style of play.
ReplyDeleteNo no, this isn't what I meant. I wouldn't edition-war as part of the text (did that in the first printing of the Creature Generator, and it was a mistake), but just by the construction of the adventure intentionally favor a certain philosophy and ruleset over others.
On one hand, I probably do that a fair bit without thinking about it. On the other hand, would it be helpful to do it purposefully and precisely?
Hamlet speaks wise words.
ReplyDeleteYou can make a module such that playing it with another game system requires breaking default assumptions of that system. For most games, you can't make a module that can't be played with that particular game. (For this purpose, some editions of D&D certainly qualify as different games.)
For example, the game I am running is quite far from standard BW, which is all about player characters engaging their beliefs and fighting for them, whereas old school play often has more focus on strategic stuff and somewhat meaningless deaths and fighting the environment.
No no, this isn't what I meant. I wouldn't edition-war as part of the text (did that in the first printing of the Creature Generator, and it was a mistake), but just by the construction of the adventure intentionally favor a certain philosophy and ruleset over others.
ReplyDeleteOn one hand, I probably do that a fair bit without thinking about it. On the other hand, would it be helpful to do it purposefully and precisely?
I stand (er . . . sit) corrected.
My answer is no, you don't really need to be more concious about it. Your work already pretty clearly favors a specific style and likely a specific edition. Going any further, or doing it conciously would likely change things for the worse.
Just write good adventures and products as you see fit and let those who buy them do with them as they please (short of copywrite violation of course). Those who like the old editions will probably enjoy the modules tremendously for what they are. Those who don't will either not pick them up, or will use whatever version of their chosen game tickles their fancy and the end result will look alien to you, but who cares? They enjoyed themselves.
If you try to please everyone you'll end up pleasing no one.
ReplyDelete