Alright guys - let's simmer down.

Peter: Josh is not a Troll. While he may sometimes come across a little brusque in his posts, he is genuinely (I believe) trying to discuss the ideas posted.

If you post on the forum, you have to acknowledge the fact that said post will garner some sort of feedback. As I'm sure you know, a forum is not a place to post some sort of manifesto that will be read and accepted by all. The beauty of the forums is the back and forth of ideas and opinions.

I think your post is very interesting and has valid points. However, I can also see where others may disagree or put their own spin on things.

I urge you to engage with the other posters and see what comes of it. You may be pleasantly surprised.

Thank you.

peter, your the one resorting to name calling rather than addressing the points that I disagree with. I think you are equating "troll" with someone who disagrees with you, thank you Henry.

Thus far this has remained a one sided conversation about your "definitive" opinion about writing convention scenarios, perhaps you could link us some samples of your work and point out parts of what you are trying to express.

First of, let me clarify; the purpose of my original post was to advise module authors of some of the most prevalent errors I have seen made by authors as a player, judge, playtester and editor. Namely, failing to write for the time allotted, a lack of opportunity for PC agency and action, writing appropriate challenges, and conveying the module's intentions and expectations for the PCs.

While many of these difficulties may well have contributing factors from the players and judge, I am specifically addressing the role of the author in this topic. That is the topic I would like to address here, and respectfully request that posters to this topic keep to the topic.

Further, I am not addressing the modules of any given author or campaign. I posted an identical thread to the discussion group for the campaign I write for.

Finally, my point about writing to "tell a story" is intended to address authors who write module that force the players to observers, or worse, victims of the events in the module, rather than active agents of those events. This media must be one of cooperative storytelling. I submit that no one goes to the trouble of gathering a full table of players and a judge, orders a module, creates characters with backgrounds, personalities, and abilities within the framework of the rules, in order to have a story read to them. Players want to be the heroes. That is why they show up. Module authors must remember that they are not writing for themselves, or the campaign staff, but for the players. If you want to write stories for yourself, find a fanfiction site.

I think I am guilty of most of what you dislike about Authors, Peter And while I do agree that players should have a certain amount of agency, I also am strongly on the side of the "story"-driven adventures.

In my own defense, I do tend to write somewhat more closed-off storylines. I personally like the idea of Heroes becoming involved in a situation much bigger than themselves; having to survive when life is falling apart around them. I personally feel it gives a certain edge to an adventure. As to player agency, I do agree that a Player has to feel like they are involved in the story, and that they are experiencing something. That said, I am also in favour of LIMITING how much a player can do because I am a sucker for realism. In real life, the King of a country is unlikely to blindly take the word of a bunch of (often) foreign meddlers who he has just met, so in many ways I find adventures where you can massively change the politics with a single skill roll as breaking my immersion in the universe.

I also find that by limiting options in an adventure, it forces people to be more creative. If you simply allow people to do whatever they want in order to force agency, there comes a point where you can push the experience from RPG to a pen-and-paper version of Goat Simulator: Fun and amusing, but lacking substance (NOTE: This is an extreme example meant to illustrate, not to be representative). I am also a fan of trying to keep a narrative power-curve going, where Tier I characters can affect the world around them, but not as much as a Tier II could, and neither of them as much as a Tier III could. Though I know that PCI and Henry got a fair amount of grief about the level of Player agency during the Crusade (some from me, I admit), looking back on it it was as close to 'perfect' a representation of the 'power level' of the world that a Tier I character SHOULD have access to. Now that we're in Tier II, we're rubbing shoulders with Prelates and becoming involved in a brewing conflict in the Blessed lands as our own people instead of just as soldiers in a war. Next Tier we may be actively seeking out conflict and 'righting wrongs', and the one after that we may once again become "Champions of Light".

As for adventure length. . . well, as you say, it is very hard. Of my three adventures that have been released so far, one I found was too short, and one had to be split up into a two-rounder. Being able to condense an experience into a 4 hour timeslot, allowing for Roleplaying, fights, and plot is hard, and not a skill I have admittedly mastered yet. That said, I am going to continue to pelt my imperfect adventures at PCI in hopes that practice makes perfect

Based on your clarifications and tone, I don't see how you think this is a post that will then garner much discussion. To me, it only sounds like an attempt at a lecture. And that's just not interesting.

Out of curiosity, what campaign do you write and edit for?

Cody,
I agree that the players shouldn't be changing the course of countries or empires in every event.
But I think the best way to express that is to size the difficulty to things the players can realistically effect. Changing the course of a kingdom may be a stretch, but the course of a small town? Or even just saving one farm. The scope of an event doesn't have be enormous for it to be meaningful. Some of the best modules I have seen were about changing the course of a single person's life, or a family's. Bigger isn't necessarily better. And a large sweeping change is best told in bite-size chunks over a series of modules, where each module makes small cumulative changes. That is what makes this a campaign. The arc created many smaller stories.

Rick,
I disagree. I think the process and goals of module writing gives us plenty to talk about.

I currently write, playtest, edit and do rules design for The Fellowship of the White Star.
In the past I have written for Living City, Living Jungle, Living Death, and Living Greyhawk.

Arcanis is the campaign where I get to be lazy and let other people do the work.

As an aside, I view online discussions forums more in the sense of a debate rather than a face to face conversation, I have much more facility in debate than i do in conversation. I feel that if you read my postings in the sense of debate that come across much more in the way I think.



So here is where part of my disagreement come in. I am here for the story. If I wanted to participate in collaborative storytelling that's 100% player driven there are other better ways to do that, I feel that you are advocating very much for one end of the spectrum, father away from the one that I prefer.

One way to view this is a giant slider: one one end of the slider is completely character driven games, the other end of the slider is the story being read to you.

that same slider also can indicate the closeness of the writer and the GM, the closer they are the more character story involvement can happen as part of the main story. but the less interaction that happens between GM and Writer the less character story involvement that can happen.

There are lots of things that follow that same slider. I personally really like where that slider is at for the Arcanis Campaign.

I like Josh's slider analogy and where Arcanis fits in it.

Ive tried 'player collaborative' indie rpgs such as Dungeon World, Dogs in the Vineyard, etc and it honestly didn't do anything for me. They are not great for the shared world campaign experience since they will lack one key element...consistency.

I think Legends of Arcanis has hit the sweet spot and its authors are on the mark.

Josh,
First, you appear to have misunderstood my points on player agency. I'm not suggesting that a nationwide shared campaign should, or can publish events where the players have complete control. I am saying that every event needs to allow the PCs to be an active, not passive participant in the events the module presents. Being along for the ride is fine for a movie or novel, but I play RPG's for more than that.

Second, I'm not sure why you feel the need to constantly and loudly defend what no one is attacking. I NEVER stated or implied that Arcanis is any more susceptible to these mistakes than any other campaign. I have seen these problems in modules from every campaign, and thought current or prospective authors might benefit from my experience and perspective.