Hooks

[DangerousPuhson]

Found this article today (https://lukegearing.blot.im/you-dont-need-hooks-you-have-been-lied-to), and I gotta say, I kind of agree with it.

Why is there an insistence to include hooks in everything? As the author points out, by necessity hooks need to be pretty dang party-specific, and module authors have no way of knowing what will or won't motivate your party... so why do we demand the inclusion of generic motivations for everything the party is expected to do? Is it a case of hand-holding for rookie DMs, or what?

Rumors I get. They flesh out the world a bit. They get the party excited for possibilities. Rumors can act as hooks. But actually insisting on a pre-made hook, literally handing a party their own motivation for doing something? Seems a bit strange, when you consider it. A case could probably be made that it's virtually a form of railroading.

Where do you guys stand on this?

 

[Beoric]

Pre-written hooks are usually garbage. There is the odd exception, where the hook is creative, likely to work for most parties, and something I wouldn't necessary have thought of myself. But usually they are pretty much phoned in.

 

[Two orcs]

I think hooks are important for module writers and DMs!

An adventure is the presentation of an unstable or meta-unstable situation where adventurers can make a big difference, the hook is what informs them of this, they know that it'll be worth their efforts to get involved. Most places in the fictional world are likely stable, the law is upheld (or completely absent), wealth is hoarded by the strong, the wizard remembered to renew the wards etc.

The hook says here is a weakness, and if you are the first to exploit it you can get rich. The dragon is missing a scale, the local government don't have enough manpower to deal with a bandit gang, the wizard is missing from the tower, the king has gone insane, etc.

 

[Two orcs]

The stability of a situation is the difference between an adventure module and a setting module. Writing up a castle with its defenders and treasury and political entanglements is not much different than writing out the statistics and behavior of a monster, it's not an adventure but an element of a possible adventure.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I see where you're coming from, orcs, but at the same time I'm left wondering. If hooks are meant to present the status of the situation to the players, then why wouldn't a DM be able to do that with just the background information? In the format it's in now, it feels like:

"Hey DM, here is what's going on inside this module. Now here is the same information for your players, only less so, and in words that aren't yours and probably don't align with your party's situation"

In my eyes, hooks are a hand-holding inclusion - if not for the players who are incapable of building character motivation, then for the DM who is incapable of summarizing what they've read.

 

[Two orcs]

I think making summaries and other cognitive supports are core to the job of a module writer, that's why you read a module instead of coming up with something yourself in the first place! It's also a flag to the DM of where a good start is, it's a promise that if they follow this the players will get to the meat of the adventure. A good DM could maybe make better hooks, but a good DM could also just write better modules in the first place.

We might be talking about different cases, I think about the platonic ideal of a hook, you might think of the typical hook which might as well not be included (you're caravan guards, some guy hires you to steal a thing, you find a map). Another feature of hooks is, if you can't write a good one, your adventure is probably missing something!

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I think making summaries and other cognitive supports are core to the job of a module writer, that's why you read a module instead of coming up with something yourself in the first place

That is a very fair point. I guess in a way, a module by it's nature *is* technically a form of hand-holding

 

[Beoric]

I think hooks are important for module writers and DMs!

An adventure is the presentation of an unstable or meta-unstable situation where adventurers can make a big difference, the hook is what informs them of this, they know that it'll be worth their efforts to get involved. Most places in the fictional world are likely stable, the law is upheld (or completely absent), wealth is hoarded by the strong, the wizard remembered to renew the wards etc.

The hook says here is a weakness, and if you are the first to exploit it you can get rich. The dragon is missing a scale, the local government don't have enough manpower to deal with a bandit gang, the wizard is missing from the tower, the king has gone insane, etc.

Agreed that a good hook can do this. The vast majority of pre-written hooks do not do this in any meaningful way.

Also, I think your examples are more akin to what DP in thinking of in terms of rumors. I hadn't really though of these as being distinguishable before (except with respect to randomness), but upon consideration I think the way hooks are generally used and the way rumors are generally used are distinguishable.

Most hooks I see in modules are telling the players what to do. Join a caravan, find the missing person, return the McGuffin, escort the princess, etc. Person X asks you to do Y. Even T1's "you are broke and seeking your fortune" is like this. Essentially, "This is the adventure you are going on tonight." The hook tells the players what they must do, because they are "hooked". Whereas rumors provide information, and what the players do with it is up to them.

Let's say the Duke asks you to secretly deliver a letter, unopened, to a particular address. That's a hook that tells you what to do to start the adventure, but it isn't really interesting. But if in addition to that hook, you hear a rumor that the Thieves' Guild will pay handsomely for dirt on the Duke, then the players have a choice, essentially, between two adventures. You have effectively turned the hook (according to my definition) into a rumor; delivering the letter unopened is not longer something the players are expected to do, it is now information about the Duke and what he wants you to do, and is only one of the available options.

When the players receive the information is also part of what separates a hook from a rumor. If the hook is a map that the players find/receive at the start of the campaign, without more information, then it is a hook, because it is a clear path to follow. But if the players find a map in the middle of an adventure or campaign, and are not compelled to use it, then it is a rumor.

So I guess a good hook is one that both tells the players what to do, but also gives a reason why the players might want to do it. Which can vary significantly from player to player. So, a hook plus one or more supporting rumors. "Go to the Tower and fetch me the Heart of the Elephant," is the hook, whereas "The Heart is likely in the High Priest's treasury... I care not for the gold or petty baubles, just bring the Heart to me!" is a rumor.

I guess ideally you want to have the rumors first. The players have heard that the Baron is a good man, who rewards loyalty, and that the High Priest is evil, and his Tower is full of riches. And then the Baron asks them to fetch the Heart.

So hooks are hooks, and rumors are bait, I guess? I'm sort of thinking out loud here. So, "guard the caravan" is a hook, and boring on its own. More interesting is, "The One-Eye gang keeps raiding my caravans, and has taken me for a fortune. Protect the caravan if you can, but more importantly, I want you to track the gang back to their lair, do what damage to them that you can, and report back. If you find my treasure, you can keep whatever you can carry on your person, as long as you tell me where to find the rest."

The stability of a situation is the difference between an adventure module and a setting module. Writing up a castle with its defenders and treasury and political entanglements is not much different than writing out the statistics and behavior of a monster, it's not an adventure but an element of a possible adventure.

I think a good setting also has built-in points of instability. Say the Duke asks you to deliver the letter, and there is no specific rumor, but the players know that in-setting the Tyrants criminal gang pays for information, and decide to make a little money on the side. There is real pleasure when the players get to know your setting well enough that they start leveraging that knowledge.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

upon consideration I think the way hooks are generally used and the way rumors are generally used are distinguishable.

I make the distinction thusly:

Hooks are an impetus, a signpost/call to action. Not necessarily a mandatory thing, but they apply to the here and now: "A jade wolf idol must be recovered before the next full moon"; "I order you to bring me the elephant's heart!"; "The Baron demands the recovery of the Fire Diamond from the Pit of Weeping Wounds" etc. A hook is the bit of information -- the tangible kind that gets passed along to the players -- that the players then "bite" onto (i.e. direct the party's actions towards), and can be "reeled" into the adventure (or dungeon, or showdown, or what have you).

Rumors are bits of floating information concerning the world at large. They often lead to bigger and cooler things (like treasure and monsters and dungeons), but they don't "catch" the party like a hook and pull them there; I believe the expectation is that the information is kept in back-of-mind, and the party may or may not make use of it down the road somehow, usually either as a reminder to go somewhere (let's check out that thing we heard about twice now, since we have a spare moment), or something they can leverage into some kind of an advantage (shortcuts, weaknesses, king's favorite brand of soda, etc).

 

[Two orcs]

I make a similar distinction, hooks are calls to action while rumors are either bait for hooks, or intelligence to give you advantage during the adventure.

Hook: Achilles, greatest warrior of the Achaeans, is raging outside the walls, calling for single combat. His war gear is priceless and killing him might win you the war outright.

Rumor: Achilles' armor has a gap at the heel.

 

[Malrex]

I'm in Two Orcs camp.

Also, I can also see hooks as creative ideas just for the DM to flesh out.
In Kellerin's Rumble, one hook is you win/inherit a warehouse, blah blah....I think it might be boring for that to be read to a player. But I think a good DM can use that in previous adventures and give a reward to a character--which then takes them to the next adventure.

 

[EOTB]

I certainly agree with Luke on this score.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I certainly agree with Luke on this score.

Yeah, and that's pretty much the mindset I had when I made this post, because I too was quizzical about the practice (which I assume is just a holdover from 50 years of inclusion, or a "it's done that way because it's always done that way" type thing). These particular words from your linked review ring very true to my thinking:

...the very nature of a hook presumes a campaign does not exist. For a hook to be able to slot in several campaigns at any moment, they must be so banal that they need not be repeated, or exist outside of perhaps a single book of hooks referenced by everyone. "Suggested hooks would be #4, #12, and #21 from the Universal Book of Hooks." People will waste a quarter- or half-column in a two page dungeon on shit that boil down to fifty ways to say "someone you've never met needs your help - if you want to play, say yes".

 

[pwtucker]

I always assumed hooks were mostly meant to help out DM's hosting tables at gaming stores or conventions, where they need an ad hoc reason to throw a bunch of strangers into the adventure without overthinking it.

 

[bryce0lynch]

Yes, a pretext that avoids the DM just saying outright "look, do you wanna play tonight or not?" or, perhaps, avoiding that opening statement from G1, the monologue that sets up the canned adventure. And, yet, we do need SOME way to introduce the party to the adventure. A rumour table might be it. "The kid Mary, that sleeps under the bar, is missing." But, somehow, you've got to introduce the adventure to the party, and preferably in a manner that doesn't outright break any immersion.

As presented today, the vast VAST majority of hooks are simply garbage. Occasionally there will be one that is great. There's so much a hook COULD, avoiding Lareth syndrome, foreshadowing, etc, but its almost universally wasted. I don't care if epeople include one, generally, but if you do then it better be better than "someone hired you"

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I think at this point we could safely substitute the term "hook" for "preamble", and just roll it all into the adventure background. By many definitions of the game, the players are technically supposed to be "hooking themselves" (i.e. generating their own motivations) anyway, if that makes sense. Rumors are better for that - much more organic to the campaign world and provide way more agency.

If it's a standalone session, I've never heard anyone complain about being plopped in front of a dungeon and being told simply "here is the adventure today". You can wrap it up in verbal trappings so it feels less like a "take it or leave it" situation, but ultimately the basic motivation of "the adventure starts here!" is inherently understood by everyone. Some would see it as a railroading faux-pas, but I think that's very dependent on who you ask, and even less of an issue in a one-off adventure (which is expected to be a railroad).

Honestly, the omission of a hook seems like a non-problem to me; if a DM can't invent a reason for the party to check something out, they probably lack the imagination required to be a DM anyway.

 

[Malrex]

I think at this point we could safely substitute the term "hook" for "preamble", and just roll it all into the adventure background. By many definitions of the game, the players are technically supposed to be "hooking themselves" (i.e. generating their own motivations) anyway, if that makes sense. Rumors are better for that - much more organic to the campaign world and provide way more agency.

Honestly, the omission of a hook seems like a non-problem to me; if a DM can't invent a reason for the party to check something out, they probably lack the imagination required to be a DM anyway.

Everyone is commenting about hooks being for the players (I didnt read Luke's blogpost though), but I see hooks being a helpful tool for the DM--mainly in the way that it summarizes some of the key components of the adventure. My backstory/summaries are usually pretty short, so the hooks can enhance that backstory for the DM to choose what they want to do with it or how to get the PCs to the adventure---or basically a quick summary.

Sure...as DP says, some DMs may lack the imagination required to be a good DM...fair enough, but where I'm coming from is the hook can be a tool for the DMs that have a great imagination, but they lack time. They grab an adventure and need to run it within the next 30 seconds....are you telling me that reading some hooks right off the bat would not help a DM get a quick sense of the adventure's purpose and get the game going and maybe create some interaction to at least see where things lead?

I never read hooks to my players--usually they are jarring, railroady, and as others have stated--they suck, etc. But I still find hooks extremely useful.
As DM, I know the hook.....so I use the bait (rumors--which I think are critical to adventure design), which creates that DM/Player interaction, to get them on the hook (that they dont necessarily know about) and most times the result is players think they are acting out on their own motivations (which should be every DM's goal in my opinion). Now I got my player's focus on the game.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

All of that can be accomplished with a well-written background piece though (whose literal, specific purpose in a module is to orient the DM to the situation). If a DM lacks the time to read a background, I don't see why they would have time to read a bunch of hooks instead. Just put one inside the other - two birds, one stone.

A hook is basically boxed-text motivation, which strikes as bad form in my book. Rumors accomplish the same task of hinting a motivation to the players, and they do so in a less intrusive, more natural way.

I find your analogy of hooks as an actual fishing hook with rumor bait is a bit off the mark, because in this case the bait usually serves as a hook. I can tell the party "I heard there was free gold in the old mill", and I bet they'll pop around that mill with little coaxing beyond that. Hooked by bait.

A hook is limited in its use as a DM orientation tool anyway, because by definition it contains little-to-no hard informational facts about the situation; it is only a partial interface for the players. Knowing that the party patron seeks a golden chalice tells you nothing about the adventure beyond "there is a golden chalice". But if you read the background piece and learn about a golden chalice in the dungeon, it's not very hard to come up with reasons why someone would send a party after it. Plus when you omit the pre-generated, prescribed "why" of the adventure, the DM is more free to customize the motivation of the party to better suit their specific campaign.

 

[The Heretic]

During the 3.x era (and maybe onward), Dungeon magazine adventures would include a short section on how to include the adventure in one's campaign. I suppose that was okay with Dungeon, since it appealed to the broadest audience possible and probably included quite a few amateur DMs. Truthfully though, hooks are only important for the plot heavy railroads that Trad gaming favored. Event based modules too. Location based modules don't need them. I always ignore the 'hook' starting G1, and I believe some of the proto-sandbox modules like L1 didn't include them. I3, which was at the beginning of Trad, used one (similar in concept to the hook in G1) but even that one really didn't need a hook.

The Heretic

 

[bryce0lynch]

I find your analogy of hooks as an actual fishing hook with rumor bait is a bit off the mark, because in this case the bait usually serves as a hook. I can tell the party "I heard there was free gold in the old mill", and I bet they'll pop around that mill with little coaxing beyond that. Hooked by bait.

Ah, that's easy shit though. As mentioned, location based stuff is easy. "There's gold, gold is xp. xp is levels." Similarly, I'll all over the Hand of Vecna and a Sphere to Annihilation.

It becomes a more interesting question in the plot/hero shit that's popular these days. Although, I suppose it all just a variation of the DM saying "do you want to play tonight or not?" We're all just looking for some kind of plausible pretext. But, also, that's all it is, we don't need to agonize over it.