Writing a roleplaying scenario for convention play is very peculiar and specific writing challenge. Above and beyond the integration of the mechanics of whatever rules set you use, the plot, characters and descriptions must all be carefully crafted and balanced, taking into account the whims and vagaries of players and gamemasters beyond your control. Writing for a shared campaign increases the challenge, as the characters the players choose to play may be ill-suited to the tasks, setting, or motivation you provide. Above all else, your goal must be clear; not to tell your story, but to construct a framework within which the gamemaster and players can collaborate to tell their story.
The player characters are the heroes of the tale. If you lose sight of this single, most important fact, your scenario will fail. It doesn't matter how well crafted your story is, how engaging and real the characters, if the player characters aren't the heroes, if the scenario happens to them, or around them, instead of because of them, then you haven't written an adventure. You've written a short story.
Roleplaying games are interactive cooperative storytelling. The player characters should be actors, not observers, heroes not victims. All too often I play or run scenarios where the author has lost sight of this in favor of crafting a story. A plot must be present, but it should be fluid, to account for player actions, and it should be simple, to allow for the time available. Non-player characters should be rich, well-rounded and realistic, but they should not be the heroes of the tale. They should be the villains and supporting cast for the heroes seated at the table.
Balancing the difficulties and challenges in the scenario is as tricky as framing the plot or presenting the characters. On one hand, the challenges should be realistic and appropriate to the setting and adversaries. On the other, not every group of player characters will be capable of meeting all manner of challenges. Whenever possible, provide multiple methods of solving any particular problem. In addition, resist the temptation to increase the difficulty of mundane tasks or the competence of minor adversaries to challenge higher level characters. Experts in any particular skill should succeed in their area of expertise, and dabblers should have at least an even chance for success in any endeavor necessary to complete the mission. If you like, you may reward the true virtuoso with a bit of extra insight or information as a reward for his expertise, but virtuosity should not be a necessity.
Timing and pacing of a scenario present challenges as well. If your scenario has a time pressure, or "ticking clock" element included, be sure this comes across to the players. If events need time to unfold, be sure not to give the impression that haste is in the player characters' best interest. Above all, remember that you are writing for a four to five hour event slot. After time for late players, getting settled, bathroom breaks, end of game paperwork and packing up, players realistically only have three hours of play time in a four hour slot. It's always better to be a little short, than a little long. If the scenario runs short, players can take extra time to roleplay with each other or particularly interesting non-player characters or settings. Players who finish early often feel a sense of accomplishment for their efficiency. If the scenario runs long, players feel rushed, and may make mistakes or lose track of important clues. Players who finish late often wonder if the took the wrong path, and may have difficulty being on time to their next event.
Writing a roleplaying scenario for a convention setting can be a very rewarding and satisfying writing endeavor. The excitement of many different people playing and running your work and enjoying your plot, characters and settings is heady stuff. If you write with these points in mind, everyone will enjoy your work more, and you'll find your editors will await your next scenario with eager expectation.

I basically agree with everything Peter wrote. Whatever's going on, its the PCs who need to have the power of "agency" to influence events. Even if they aren't regaled as heroes after the event, its their choices that determined what conclusion were reached.

As someone whose written modules tend to run long I'll also try to keep in mind the virtue of brevity. Or continue to fall back on the two round module (which I know convention schedulers sometimes curse). I have hopes To Die Alone will fit in one slot safely.

I Disagree with some of the assumptions made in the original post.



That is Arcanis's most public face for certain but not the only place that Arcanis gets played, Players and Chroniclers have as much if not more of an influence on how long a mod runs than the author. The assumption that the responsibility is focused on the author is a fallacy of ommision.




Again a fundamental disagreement, There are many ways to game, and even more reasons to game. playing a game "to tell your story" is one but not the only one. I personally think that Arcanis has a lot going for it in terms of Its story are you suggesting that the story of Arcanis doesn't matter?



This I agree with, but again sometimes this is really a matter of the person running the game rather than the mod.

Peter, You seem to be railing at something in specific, you wanna call it out?

OK, Josh, this topic is about writing convention scenarios. For Amy campaign. The original post is my personal opinions on writing convention scenarios. I think you may want to start your own topic.

I agree fundamentally with everything said. I try to employ these elements even in my home game adventures for all systems. The only suggestion I would make is to edit the post and allow for section breaks and maybe some section titles. This would make an excellent start to a 'guide to module writing' that could include sections on encounter building, etc.

Josh, I think you're reading too much into this and getting defensive about something that isn't being said. The 'story' aspect that he's communicating (I believe) is that if the author of a module has a story to tell and the PC's are just along for the ride and cannot influence or affect the outcome, it is probably better served as a short story than an adventure. There should be a story within the adventure, but if it has a predefined conclusion or if the characters are just supporting players as the tale unfolds, it becomes less satisfying.

John

Exactly, what I was saying, John. When I write a module, I think of writing a single issue of a comic book, with the PCs as the team of heroes.

I do agree. While every adventure needs a story if the players are just watching it unfold then why are they going to bother and play? Opportunities for them to feel like they have influenced the final result (even if they haven't and it would have played out regardless) are vital.

I wrote my disagreement to foster a discussion, and because I do disagree with the foundations of the post.

I am allowed to disagree yes? or should i post something that just says "oh yes, that"?

Well, Josh, it really didn't come across as "fostering discussion". It seemed to me that you wanted to attack the idea that the discussion existed. So, I dismissed you as a troll. And your latest post hasn't challenged that assumption.

So why is it that Josh can't (reasonably) disagree with something?

I see lots of merit in what Josh is saying. In my experience, too often players chafe at anything that 'limits' what they think they want (or are entitled) to do. Events, for conventions or otherwise, have to have a framework and structure, and limitations. If players don't understand that, then they have unreasonable expectations. These living campaigns aren't a free-for-all, and too often I see players wanting that.

Now, I also like the general premise of what Peter brought up, that all events should be about how the PCs can interact with and influence interesting or important events in the local/regional/world region. A combination of those all are best, imo.