Best laid out non-dungeon module?

Pseudoephedrine said:
I am firmly anti-quirk, and instead prefer to focus on the motive, means, and opportunities that NPCs have, since I think it pushes one to focus on what is relevant to their presence in the game.
Click to expand...

I think we need to define something before I can respond in earnest: what do you consider a successfully-run NPC to look like? How do you know you have built a successful encounter with an NPC, and most importantly, by what measures are we to ascribe "success"? I think our answers may differ.
 
I consider a successful NPC to be someone the players can make and fail to make real predictions about based on their character. Basically, they seem real and distinct enough that players apply theory of mind to them instead of the GM. This opens up the possibility for reward (both in terms of strategic success and satisfaction) when the players make accurate predictions. When they think an NPC is real true surprise is also possible when their mental image is subverted.
 
Two orcs said:
I consider a successful NPC to be someone the players can make and fail to make real predictions about based on their character. Basically, they seem real and distinct enough that players apply theory of mind to them instead of the GM. This opens up the possibility for reward (both in terms of strategic success and satisfaction) when the players make accurate predictions. When they think an NPC is real true surprise is also possible when their mental image is subverted.
Click to expand...

So, if I'm trying to understand your meaning correctly: your definition of a successfully running an NPC can be distilled down to one that is A) predictable, and B) realistic, yes? Is that what you're saying here?
 
Believable is more accurate than realistic, after all this is a fantasy game containing some people that can't exist. Just like tactical situations require transparency to allow maneuvering so do social interactions. What is more important for the player's enjoyment though I suspect is the stickiness of believable characters, if the players buy into the idea that it's a real person it cuts straight to their hard wired social neurology (or the reverse, I'm not sure which causes which here).
 
DangerousPuhson said:
what do you consider a successfully-run NPC to look like?
Click to expand...
Interesting question. I think I have different criteria depending upon whether the NPC is someone they have an ongoing relationship with, or someone where the relationship is largely confined to the encounter.

When there is an ongoing relationship I take it as successful if the players start talking about the NPC like a real person. I like it when they get emotionally invested in the NPCs, and the absolute best is when they seem to forget they are talking to me (which is pretty rare but has happened).

Encounter NPCs I judge largely by interactivity. Can the players interact with the NPC in a natural way (well, natural for the circumstances), and is there a potential in-game benefit for them to do so? At a minimum the NPC should convey something about the world and the people who inhabit it, although I prefer it if NPCs also have the potential to have a more concrete impact than that. NPCs that have nothing useful to say are a waste of my time and my players' time, so I try to make it clear who is an "extra".
 
I really like the NPC descriptions in Bone Marshes.

He gives you the basis to tell how the character will react to basic events and you can often go from there.

The Mud Women is a good example or Azimech
 
DangerousPuhson said:
I think we need to define something before I can respond in earnest: what do you consider a successfully-run NPC to look like? How do you know you have built a successful encounter with an NPC, and most importantly, by what measures are we to ascribe "success"? I think our answers may differ.
Click to expand...

I don't have one single standard at the level of their function in the game, which is what I think you're asking for? I would agree with two orcs that I want players to be able to apply their folk theories of mind to the NPC rather than to me as the referee, regardless of what function the NPC is intended to serve (whether making the world "come alive", being a major antagonist or ally, providing a clue or quest, etc.). Rather than "realistic" or "predictable", I prefer the term "intelligible" - I want PCs to feel that they can successfully decode (to a greater or lesser extent) the beliefs, desires, and character of NPCs and then interact with them on that basis. They won't always do so reliably, and the concerns of these people may be very alien in content or focus from our own (thus why I don't use "realistic" or "predictable") but I strive to make that decoding possible.

Similarly to Beoric, when those qualities aren't relevant to interacting with the NPC or when I apprehend that the PCs aren't interested in a particular NPC, I tend to aim for greater and greater degrees of abstraction (e.g. "You go shopping for a sword. Spend your gold." if they aren't interested in haggling with merchants).
 
Reading The Pit in the Forest (slowly), I will say I don't agree with this:
TPITF said:
Treasure assumes an xp-for-gold model and a B/X-like xp chart, but (taking a leaf from Tomb of the Serpent Kings) it assumes 10 xp per gp so that the treasure piles aren’t ludicrous.
Click to expand...
I think the intent is well-meaning (I'm going to have to look closer at the Serpent Kings), but you know what I'm going to say, right? Leave the treasure piles small, use the silver standard for the local economy, but just let level advancement be slow---that's a good thing.

At some point, your team will hit the mother-lode and shoot up a level...don't rush it. Patience young Skywalker! Enjoy the journey.

(Incidentally, you know what I'm not against? Finding magic in the dungeon that bumps your level. Now that's treasure!)
 
My experience after adopting various 1 coin = 1 XP schemes over the years has been that the practical effect is to disincline me from offering coin-based treasure and offer more object-based treasure instead. I often seclude coinage's presence to various patrons and quest givers who pay PCs for task completion, while what they pull out of the dungeon are rare items and weird magic which they either do on behalf of a patron or with the goal of speculatively reselling.
 
You are saying use small, high-value objects to prevent the necessity for "Tenser's Floating Disk" or other coin-logistics conundrums for the party?
 
Logistics are the heart of the challenge! Why mourn a 20gp pack mule falling to a wolf attack? Because that's 20,000-40,000 coins less you'll be carrying back home. In the big firefight in the movie Heat, why is the scene tense? Because the robbers are burdened at first by gym bags full of cash and later their wounded comrades. Without the heavy bags no risk being encircled by the police, and no temptation of dropping the cash, your buddy or both to make a run for it.

By putting down money on logistics characters can punch above their weight class and make more money than their personal power would suggest. Wilderness encounters bother you? Hire a small army for your wilderness treck. A local lord bothers you? Hire a medium army. Risking your life is all or nothing (depending on Raise dead rules) but spending money on adventure allows players to choose their own risk.
 
I don't see the XP in Serpent Kings, but found this particular insightful. The key to understand most things is historical context.
Tomb of the Serpent Kings said:
Tomb of Horrors and Death Frost Doom are both reactions to something, but what they are reacting to doesn’t really exist as a published product.
Click to expand...
 
squeen said:
You are saying use small, high-value objects to prevent the necessity for "Tenser's Floating Disk" or other coin-logistics conundrums for the party?
Click to expand...

I don't sweat the disk, but I think it's easier if the value of the objects is up in the air, and the big hauls are logistical challenges. as two orcs mentions. I once placed a boulder with some fossils in it as a piece of treasure. If the PCs could get it out of the dungeon it would be worth "over ten thousand silver pieces", but no precise count of its value was given. Was it worth it? Did they even have the ability to get the boulder out? Could they chisel out the most prominent fossils and sell them for a portion of that value? These were all things they enjoyed debating that were way more interesting both them and me than simply finding a chest of 7,821 silver pieces (and thereby, 7,821 XP) and hauling it out in sacks.
 
Not saying all treasure ought to be, but I always try to include a few treasures with logistical baggage in every dungeon I design - the classic "big heavy thing worth a lot of money" or "ultra-fragile thing that's worthless if broken" tropes with a sprinkling of a few major handling or selling drawbacks (an abstract cost to use it, radiates something dangerous, cursed to be literally worth no man's money, etc.), and you've got yourself some treasure that'll impact your party a bit more than the "pac-man pills" that are coins and gems. The drawback sort of makes them more invested in what they pick up; they get into "group huddle mode", which is always some nice immersion to see.
 
EOTB said:
This is why one persistent quibble I have with the new OSR is the disdain for “mundane magic and treasure”. You don’t get OMG magic and treasure unless it’s contrasted with utterly utilitarian, boring, vanilla magic and treasure.
Click to expand...
^^^This hits the nail on the head for me. If everything's fancy, it becomes a paperwork nightmare for the players and the DM as well.
I've been going with "it is worth 1200 gp to the right buyer" leaving it up to the DM if he wants to be a dick about it during the PCs' downtime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top