Wednesday 4 May 2022

Running Modules As Written

About a year ago, Luka Rejec made the case that nobody runs D&D modules "as written", and indeed that it is impossible to do so. What the author envisages will never be perfectly transposed into the text, and every reader will encounter and interpret the text differently. And that's before the plan, so to speak, makes contact with the enemy. Every gaming group is different, and will approach the setup in its own particular way. That there could be a "complete" module a DM could run off the bat is hence a pipe dream.

Prince of Nothing, everybody's favourite Dutch internet edgelord, has recently responded, calling this position untenable and making the case that a module-writer should think of a module as being something like a video game level - a set of obstacles, locations, threats, etc., which the PCs have to overcome. Every group will of course encounter every module in a different way, but a good module will itself play out consistently, in the same way, just as a video game level is the same for each player (even though the actual events play out differently in practice every time). 

Now, on the one hand, I am on record as saying: "I have never run anything I have bought as is, and can never really imagine how anybody would; I can only really imagine somebody buying an adventure or module and pulling out bits here, removing bits there, switching X around with Y and Z with A, or perhaps just going away inspired to do their own vague pastiche of the contents." So I suppose my natural inclinations run in Luka's direction. I don't often buy modules (and when I do, I am generally excessively critical), but I have bought enough to know that running one as written would feel to me a little bit like wearing somebody else's clothes. 

Yet at the same time, I recognise the virtue in attempting to realise PoN's quixotic dream. However people end up using modules, it is probably important that those who design them aspire for them to realise the ideal of being consistently playable, whatever the group or circumstances, "out of the box". The alternative - aspiring to create modules which will not be played, but merely read, plundered or pastiched - is likely to end in sloppiness and a kind of grab-bag mentality, with the author simply putting together a jumble of related ideas or impressions that lack coherence even as reading material. We must hold ourselves to high standards, in other words, because when we cease to do so, we tend to let ourselves go; once we have given ourselves the excuse that "nobody will ever play this anyway", we give ourselves license to create stuff which is, frankly, half-arsed. 

I suppose a simpler way of saying this is that I am "intensely relaxed" about people buying adventure modules purely to be read and never played, but the best modules to read are likely to be ones which the designer has made strenuous efforts to make consistent and robust. This is very likely to be correlated with quality in all other respects. The obverse is also true; if the designer hasn't made such efforts, this is very likely to be correlated with a lack of quality in the round. (I don't accuse Luka of this - I can honestly say I've never read anything he's written, but I do really love his art.)

An even simpler way of stating my position is that, in general, people in 2022 are already a bit too ready to make excuses for themselves for being kind of shit in most aspects of their lives, and anything which encourages that kind of mindset should really be discouraged. I like the idea of at least aspiring to make something perfect, not just jotting down some nice concepts. 

19 comments:

  1. Well said. I admire Prince of Nothing's exacting standards when it comes to module reviews, and think the wider culture could do with similarly demanding critics. There's a critical tradition, particularly in movies and TV, that has been almost entirely lost.

    It's not about being cruel or harsh. It's more a case of having a strict rubric and applying it consistently.

    I'm closer to your "what can I steal from this" approach to modules when I'm running a game, but some of my favourite RPG moments sprang from running an encounter as written. Touching on your post "How your favourite authors cheat...", you can't always tell what is intentionally hiding in a module and what is emergent gameplay, but I'm inclined to give good module writers the benefit of the doubt. Not everything that is "in" a module is explicitly written on the page.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't think it is any deeper than module authors should be anticipating likely party actions, and providing material that will support the referee. You do need to do work to make your vision transferable (and understandable) to a different group. And playtesting part or all of your adventure greatly aids this process. It helps "module tinkerers" and "running adventures as written folks" alike.
    As you say, if you come up with innovative ideas, put in the extra work to make them really shine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am sceptical about playtesting, but I certainly think having other people read and comment before releasing anything will help. This is true of basically everything in life - a second pair of eyes is going to be helpful.

      Delete
  3. If, as you often remark, this declining age of depleted morality requires us to strive anew for excellence, will you hold the reviewers of modules to the same standards, and do you really find the excellence you admire in the discussion referred to here? Yet you blame people for making excuses for themselves. I believe in your ability to uphold the standards you talk about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems like something is being insinuated by your comment, but I'm not really sure what it is.

      Delete
  4. Two things spring to mind on reading this. The first is that "as written" is a bit of a wooly term, and when you (or Luka Rejec) say that "every reader will encounter and interpret the text differently" then, yes, it is an impossibility for any module to exactly control the thoughts of those who encounter it, just as it is a novel or any other creative endeavour.

    More important though is the "nobody" part of the statement. I used to encounter this type of thinking all of the time when working in the web and software industries, although usually recast in terms of "everybody".

    "Everybody knows what a web browser is", "everybody knows how to type in a URL", even "everybody knows what is meant by 'URL'"... all it would take would be a quick conversation with my wife to demolish these delusions.

    What "nobody" really means here is "nobody who is like me", "nobody who spends a great deal of their time thinking and blogging about RPGs", "nobody who I know". There's a huge tendency for in-groups to overestimate the extent to which other people share their arcane knowledge.

    And so, in fact, *most people* run D&D modules "as written", or at least attempt to, or at least think that they are. In short, yes, PoN is right, you should be writing modules *as though* they will be run as written. Because the majority of people are not as devoted to the hobby as you are, and just want something they can pick up and run.

    Confession: I have just written a module which is probably impossible to run as written.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fair enough. But is it not also legitimate to write modules for the devoted minority?

      Delete
    2. I think it is, certainly now, when (it appears to me) there is a pretty sizeable devoted minority. Thousand Thousand Islands recently came up as the top rated... is it a module? I'm not even sure exactly what a module is. Anyway, it was very highly rated, and there's no way anyone is running that "exactly as written"

      Delete
    3. I've not read it. But clearly there is a market for obscure stuff that is designed more to "inspire" than be playable.

      Delete
  5. Following from dansumption, I most often find issue with written modules being straightforwardly incomplete or non-functional. This is worst when I'm trying out a new, unfamiliar system. I'll often GM a new system I've never played, and modules are very useful to learn the expected style of play and what's important. I can put my own spin on it later, once I have a better idea on how to run it, but I need something basically functional to start. Often that isn't fulfilled.

    A module should certainly have space and give the GM tools to modify it, but it should also be possible to run it without creative changes, for the benefit of those picking it up on short notice or trying to learn about the system through it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or maybe people who write modules should just be up front. "This is for people new to the system". Or, "This is for people very familiar with the system, who don't mind filling gaps for themselves."

      Delete
  6. I was able to run 2 mausritter modules as written. Although they are basically just a small place, a problem to solve and a well built encounter table.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I read your post (for the 2nd time…bit of insomnia tonight), then went back and read Rejec’s post (for, I think, the third time).

    That guy is a fucking idiot. I don’t think YOU are a fucking idiot..but then I wonder why you write this post.

    I mean, I’m not sure what your point is here. Is it that it’s okay for Luca to have his idiot point of view and that’s okay because some people (like yourself) don’t really attempt to run premise adventures as written?

    Dude: it’s FINE if you (or anyone) wants to spend your cash buying something just to take it apart. That’s your prerogative. But saying that it CAN’T be run as written or never should be run as written or that designers should not be concerned with writing runnable adventures is just stupid shit. I mean, I just find that offensively ignorant.

    And you, Noisms, know this: you know what an adventure scenario is. So why would you give any support to this guy who’s clearly missed the boat? Is he a buddy of yours or something?

    I find this to be a really stupid post, man. Folks can have differing opinions on things, sure. But when someone doesn’t even grok what the fuck they’re talking about, I don’t think we should give them a “thumbs up.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Having now read Rejec's post (which I hadn't when I commented before) I have to agree. It seems to me to show quite the disregard for the GM mentioned in the excerpt, for new GMs, and for people who (like I mentioned before) just want to run a game for fun every now and then.

      Delete
    2. I don't think Luka was saying that you shouldn't write a clear runnable adventure (he explicitly calls for it in his afterward). He's just pointing out that no one is going to run the same thing the exactly the same way with all the variables that role playing games provide. You can get closer to this with a lot of guardrails (railroad organization, pregens) but it's still an unreachable goal.

      Delete
    3. I'm not sure there's any disagreement. Yes, module designers should be writing modules as though they are going to be played "as written". I am just dubious about how that shakes out in practice at actual tables.

      Delete
    4. For me, at least, it depends.

      Some OSR modules, like the lotfp ones, that I love for the creativity and audacity I almost always adapt it to fit my rules and consistency tastes, they're great, but not as written.

      But when I get to run something from Melan, or even Gavin Norman from Necrotic Gnome, for example, I almost always run as written, because they're rules consistent.

      Delete
    5. Reading Rejec's post, it seemed clear to me he was just 100% being defensive towards the criticism he received but could not swallow. His amorphous counter-argument was just verbal gamesmanship. There was no meat there.

      Delete
  8. It's a question of scope, as always. One side saying that RAW os possible, just follow the words on the page, let the cream and chaff seperate on their own and keep the 'good' modules because they are easiest to run; the others point out that every reader is different and focuses on dofferent parts of the text, oftentimes the text allows for enough wiggleroom in ideation that something like '1d6 brigands' can drastically change the mood of an encounter or even campaign depending on how they are visualized and run, that even when perfectly read and understood things will slip through the cracks in the running just because us apes arent perfect memory machines.

    Past the rambling, i think ot forms a sort of punnett square: modules can and should be used raw, modules can be used raw but shouldnt and instead be stolen from to fit your campaign/group, modules cant be used raw perfectly but should be attempted to be followed faithfully, and then the mean ol atheist view that modules should just be used for idea fodder because they cant be used raw even if you wanted to.

    Pick your poison.

    ReplyDelete