Quote from: Benoist;590114OK. What if the designer's intent is for your DM to grab the written material and run like hell with it, playing his own riff off the written page?
.

If you have to add so much as a dm to make it fun though, what sense in buying the written page in the first place?  There ought to be a core of fun contained in it, which shows the creativity and captures the flavor the designer wanted to convey for anyone who played and dm'd the game, right?  In my experience over 2 sessions, there was none of that in there.

Quote from: noisms;590117Do you think there is no difference between a good GM running his own dungeon and an equally good GM running a published module?

I think there will be in effect no difference because the good GM will run the published module AS his own dungeon. Now the relevant question as far as module design is concerned, in my opinion, is HOW the module allows GMs to rise to that level and in effect, BECOME good GMs running the material as their own, which in turn will affect their inspiration and the way they come up with their own stuff, which starts a cycle, by example, that creates better GMing across the board, beyond the module itself.

Quote from: Joethelawyer;590120

Quote from: Benoist;590114OK. What if the designer's intent is for your DM to grab the written material and run like hell with it, playing his own riff off the written page?

If you have to add so much as a dm to make it fun though, what sense in buying the written page in the first place?

Who said anything about the DM having to "add SO MUCH" to be able to run like hell with the material and run it as his own? There are certainly better ways to design modules than just REQUIRE the DM to "ADD SO MUCH" to it on their own that the module in effect won't provide any help whatsoever in running the game as opposed to come up with everything on their own from scratch, aren't there?

I think there's a huge excluded-middle in the way you chose to phrase your question.

Quote from: Joethelawyer;590120There ought to be a core of fun contained in it, which shows the creativity and captures the flavor the designer wanted to convey for anyone who played and dm'd the game, right?  In my experience over 2 sessions, there was none of that in there.

I think you can certainly convey atmosphere, provide opportunities for fun adventuring, provide tools that help run the environment as a dynamic place instead of a stale picture and conceptualize, internalize, visualize it as such as you run the game itself, AND provide hooks for the GM to grab the ideas and substance behind the setting to run it as his own. It sounds like Dwimmermount doesn't do much of that, which certainly sounds like a missed opportunity, as far as I'm concerned.

Quote from: Benoist;590124It sounds like Dwimmermount doesn't do much of that, which certainly sounds like a missed opportunity, as far as I'm concerned.

hence my blog post, and this thread.

Just one final post on the matter, because I think I've said all I can on it to explain where I'm coming from---just so you guys don't think the DM was in the corner sucking a cock or something while all this was going on, he did a very good job with what he could.  He played the monsters intelligently---it wasn't just a "kick it down, swing at orcs, they fight to death, kill 'em, collect 2-6 sp from their purses."  He played the bad guys intelligently and had us on our toes at times.  Those moments though were much fewer and further between than we would have liked, due to him having to make the best of what was given to him, and the desire we had to play DM RAW.  

Like I said, we expected it to be tough, and part of the reason we wanted it RAW was so that we could say "Yeah, we beat DM level one and we only had X# of deaths."  The other part was to experience the flavor of the module as the creator intended it to be, without any other influences added by our DM to jazz it up or make it fit our playstyle or sense of fun.  We just had no idea it would be so sparse in that level of detail so as to be no fun whatsoever.  We enjoyed each others company and had fun on that level, but the module added nothing to it, and took away from the evening's enjoyment overall.

I really do think that's all I can say on the whole thing though.  I had no idea that my DM's blogpost, then mine following up on his, would create such a shitstorm.  I figured some discussion, but not at this level.  I never would have thought 6 people agreeing that something was boring and lame would lead to so many people dissecting our words and experiences so much, trying in many cases to turn the blame back on us.  It's almost as if someone can't say something sucked anymore, or that there are sacred cows that you can't touch.

Anyhow, over and out.  Gonna have a white russian or two, and watch something stupid on tv.

later...

I actually thought this was a pretty constructive thread all-in-all. It has certainly made me think a lot about how I write at least.

I'm kind of flabberghasted that this kind of discussion, as soon as it does not go overboard with raves and utter/complete support for the product, would be labeled a "shitstorm" in any way, shape or form. This is so far from the reality of this thread I have to wonder what kind of braindead groupthink would generate these types of reactions where you can't criticize anything without being shot down as a "hater".

That's bullshit. Fuck that noise.

Honestly, Joe, I thank you very much for your feedback, for not taking things personally when I criticized your approach to the module, and estar with whom all exchanges, no matter how contentious, are fruitful, as well as Justin and Kent for their examples, and everyone else who's thrown his own two coppers on this thread. We've had a good discussion so far. It's good food for thought for anyone who'll care, and speaking for myself, I certainly do.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;590061OSR D&D has always been about molding the adventure/campaign setting/rules around your own group's personal preference.  That's what separates old school play from new school "RAW!" play-style.  To explicitly and intentionally remove that does whatever OSR type game you're playing a huge disservice.

I said as much over on G+

In the early days, wouldn't even think of running a dungeon without tweaking it first...

Quote from: Benoist;590178I'm kind of flabberghasted that this kind of discussion, as soon as it does not go overboard with raves and utter/complete support for the product, would be labeled a "shitstorm" in any way, shape or form. This is so far from the reality of this thread I have to wonder what kind of braindead groupthink would generate these types of reactions where you can't criticize anything without being shot down as a "hater".

That's bullshit. Fuck that noise.

Honestly, Joe, I thank you very much for your feedback, for not taking things personally when I criticized your approach to the module, and estar with whom all exchanges, no matter how contentious, are fruitful, as well as Justin and Kent for their examples, and everyone else who's thrown his own two coppers on this thread. We've had a good discussion so far. It's good food for thought for anyone who'll care, and speaking for myself, I certainly do.

Yeah there was a lot more shit thrown on G+ than here.  I try not to take things personally or argue too much.  Not worth it.  I basically state how I feel or think, explain it if it seems some people aren't understanding me, try and understand the other guy's point as best I can, and leave it at that these days.  I'm not trying to argue or prove a point, or convince anyone of anything.  99.9% of the time, there is no right or wrong in any of these issues, just personal preference, and when there is, it's not arguing about, because it's just a damn rpg.  I just state and explain a my position and leave it at that.  Any arguments over this stuff isn't worth the mental bandwidth.  Glad it turned into a good discussion.  

Joe, so we can have a baseline of a module you think is well written, can you name some module you did like?

On which post/discussion did the shit hit the fan on G+?

Links?

Quote from: Mistwell;590197Joe, so we can have a baseline of a module you think is well written, can you name some module you did like?

down that path lies only scorn and derision man.  not worth it.  basically anything that helps me achieve the stuff i said was cool in my blog post, whether as a player or dm.  which varies on a person by person basis.  

Quote from: Benoist;590200On which post/discussion did the shit hit the fan on G+?

Links?

not worth the drama man.  its died down. it wasn't major, just more than i thought it would be for 6 people saying the adventure was boring and lame.   lots of questions and stuff, people saying we did it wrong, same as here in the earlier posts.  its over tho.  i'm gonna go back to playing games and having fun.

even the idiots at ydis are getting into it. saying i pay to play dnd on g+, even tho its free, and that i pay satine phoenix to play dnd, even tho we live on other sides of the country.  and that i have asbergerger's, among other things.  kinda funny actually.

i'm done with it.  just wanna roll some dice and have fun.  

Quote from: Joethelawyer;590116I didn't expect it to be my style of game completely, but I did expect it to be fun on some level.  To have something interesting in it.  A couple of puzzles or clues or mysteries.  Weird stuff in rooms I can put to some unorthodox creative use later.  Not just weird unexplained shit for the sake of weird unexplained shit, sparingly interspersed with boring rooms and random encounters.  Don't just make the statue on level 1 have something to do with the spear on level 9.  Do some of that long term puzzle mixed with history and background stuff, but also do some that can be solved and discovered in the short term.  Spice it up a bit.

Okay, that's what I was trying to understand through this whole thread.

The general description of Dwimmermount reminded me of Trent Foster's Castle Xanadu, which I've been fortunate enough to adventure in a couple of times. It is constructed very much in the same vein as roots-dungeons, with the one-third empty rooms and so forth, but the parts of it we explored included stuff like psychedelic incense and a ewer which when filled with blood summoned deadly cloud tentacles - after a few drops of blood summoned a few wispy tentacles, we filled up the bowl with blood from hobgoblins we killed, and the tentacles proceeded to kill one of our clerics.

What seems to be missing - in spades - from Dwimmermount is interactivity. 'Deep background' isn't the same thing as having interesting shit to fuck around with.

It's funny that Melan brought up Tegel Manor, 'cause I've been flipping through it over the last couple of weeks as I plan my swashbuckling & sorcery AD&D campaign - that's right, it's on, bitches. Lots of weird shit happening, but most of it pointless, until you factor in the Rump family, and then the place gets epic. The thing is, in Tegel Manor, all the pieces are there, but it takes the referee pulling the pieces together.

Something else that seems to be missing from Dwimmermount, at least from the descriptions? Humor. In one dungeon I kept players entertained while exploring empty rooms with the graffiti left by a pair of rival goblin 'taggers' - and finding one of the taggers' heads on a stake stuck in a torch sconce let them know how the war of words played out.

Quote from: Melan;589982There is probably another cure for lightly keyed dungeons like this, which is to keep the pace lightning-quick and come up with a lot of crap in play. I suspect this was the recipe behind EGG's infamously terse Castle Greyhawk - but in the precise recreation, something essential was lost.

Yup. If I was actually keying that same room for my personal campaign it wouldn't be much more than the original key:

46. 9 giant rats (branded with holy sigils). 20 skulls with 100 cp in each. Jeweled Thulian officer's pin (800 gp), gold necklace (200 gp), and comb (30 gp).

Conversely, if I saw a key that just said "9 giant rats" I'd probably just run a generic "rats in filthy warren" encounter most of the time. OTOH, if I saw "9 rats with 2000 cp" I'd be pretty compelled to explain why these rats have a horde of copper pieces: Is it actually the ancient payroll for the Thulian guard hidden under a loose tile in the corner? Are they scurrying through a hole in the wall that leads to some room stacked high with copper coins? Is the room the receiving end of a teleport effect to another chamber that's malfunctioning and causing copper coins to appear here? Have the copper coins been glued to the ceiling using sovereign glue? (Maybe there's a treasure map on the ceiling that has been hidden behind the coins.)

Given "9 giant rats + 2000 cp" there's a lot of ways you can develop that improv seed.

The problem with Dwimmermount -- at least in the draft copy we've seen so far -- is that Maliszewski's development of the improv seed is mind-numbingly literal and boring the vast majority of the time: 9 rats + 2000 cp? Huh. I guess there's 2000 cp hidden in rat rubbish. Next room!

And the problem is that once you've developed an improv seed into something literal it stops being an improv seed: So the first thing you need to do is roll back the boring and rebuild from scratch.

But if you're doing that, what's the point of the product again? The maps are purely generic. And the improv seed you're rolling back to can be generated using random tables in literally seconds.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;590076Rat poop, empty rooms that do nothing, etc.; while Justin makes a good case for how to make those exciting, and even considering my stump which has always been "Modules are a framework, it's up to the DM to flesh them out"

To develop this idea more explicitly: I think any GM worth playing with can take "9 giant rats" and make an interesting encounter out of it.

But if you're publishing an actual adventure for other people to use, then, IMO, you need to present more than just an improv seed. Improv seeds are cheap. If I'm paying you money, it's because I want to take your viewpoint and inject it into my campaign.

In the past I've used the analogy of theater: Every time I direct a new play, I certainly could develop an entirely new script. The reason I don't do that is specifically because I want the voice of Shakespeare or Miller or Stoppard or Chekhov to be part of my production. And that doesn't mean everyone involved in my production should simply sit back and let the playwright do all the work: Directors, designers, and actors all need to make their voice part of the collaboration.

Similarly, when I use a module designed by someone else, I'm doing it because I want their voice to be part of the game session. And the GM and players should certainly be making their own contributions to the process.

But a shitty, boring script doesn't stop being a shitty, boring script just because the directors, designers, and actors are all adding their voice to it. Similarly, a published adventure doesn't stop being a shitty, boring adventure just because the GM and players are all adding their voice to it.

(And I have seen great productions from crappy scripts and great game sessions from crappy adventures. It just doesn't change the quality of the underlying material.)