Hooks

[Beoric]

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.

Surely there is a more efficient way of doing this, though. Since (a) hooks are generally located outside of the scenario, in the sense that the ad hoc patron or urgent message or whatever is something the characters encounter before they enter the module proper, and (b) you want this information to be aimed at DMs rather than players, it would make more sense to provide game elements - patrons, quest givers, treasure maps, etc. - that exist outside of the module proper and that a DM can use as he chooses.

So for example, let's take one of the most hackneyed hooks, the caravan guard. Don't just say the PCs are hired to guard a caravan. Instead, give the DM Weird Larry,* smuggler of antiquities. Weird Larry takes crazy risks, and he's made his fortune and lost it several times over, but knows which palms to grease, and he pays to dollar to anyone who helps him move his merchandise. Make Weird Larry interesting enough that the DM is going to want to use him as an NPC even if he never uses the adventure. Maybe even develop his operation a bit. Re-use Weird Larry for other modules. Maybe in one module he's looking for someone to protect a shipment, but in another he has a treasure map and wants it checked out, and in a third the tax collector he bought has just retired, and he needs someone to sneak the goods into the country.

*Named in honor of a colorful individual I met in Babb, Montana, who actually introduced himself that way. I shit you not, Weird Larry had a holster with a beer in it, and a snub nosed pistol sticking out of his front shirt pocket. He was three sheets to the wind, and he told me a story about how the "Big Daddy Sheriff" shot his brother down, and how he wasn't a-scared of nothin', because he was a roofer.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

"Weird Larry" is just a patron - a source for the hooks and rumors. A questgiver.

They are already a very common feature in most D&D campaigns. Some argue they can be a bit "lead the players by the nose", but it's not so bad when done with a deft hand.

They don't negate the need for hooks though - if anything, they exacerbate the need for them, because giving out hooks is like 90% of a patron's role.

 

[Beoric]

"Weird Larry" is just a patron - a source for the hooks and rumors. A questgiver.

They are already a very common feature in most D&D campaigns. Some argue they can be a bit "lead the players by the nose", but it's not so bad when done with a deft hand.

They don't negate the need for hooks though - if anything, they exacerbate the need for them, because giving out hooks is like 90% of a patron's role.

This is kind of my point. Riffing off of Malrex's suggestion that hooks are more useful for DMs than for players, I'm suggesting it would be more useful to develop sources for hooks than the hooks themselves.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Theoretically yes. Problem is, patrons are legacy characters expected to be present for large chunks of the campaign, and I just don't care for the idea of a random module forcing Elminster into my game world, ya dig?

 

[Beoric]

Theoretically yes. Problem is, patrons are legacy characters expected to be present for large chunks of the campaign, and I just don't care for the idea of a random module forcing Elminster into my game world, ya dig?

Elminster would be a poor version of this, I think. I think it would work better with an NPC who could be dropped into a lot of different settings, and in interesting enough that a lot of DMs will want to add them to the setting. Also, preferably not a Mary Sue.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I don't know, it still sounds like a workaround for hooks that doesn't exactly fix anything. Like, instead of the players being given a set of instructions (the hook), they are now being pointed at a specific person who then gives them those instructions (a patron). The end result is still the same though: the module author explaining how I am meant to shoehorn this adventure into my existing campaign material, per their vision. You've just added an extra step, making me responsible for this NPC you've created that I now have to track and deploy throughout my whole campaign.

I'm still in favor of nixing hooks for rumors instead. The beauty of rumors is that they don't need a specific origin source; anyone can carry a rumor and give it at any time, making the whole world into your questgiver.

 

[squeen]

...making the whole world into your questgiver.

This is the way.


On a related note, I don't know if everyone does this (and if this sounds odd, then definitely you don't), but what do you call those moments when the party meets an NPC with lots of missing info: i.e. the one that puts the pieces together that the party have been circling around for a long time but haven't quite figured out? Finally they meet the "guy who knows stuff" and lays it out.

In those moments, you are dishing out a chunk of "world story" that is extremely riveting to the players and the antithesis of "boring backstory". You can tell the look on the party's face when it's happening. Someone inevitably shouts out "I knew it!".

"The Big Reveal?"

That moment often wraps up an adventure arc or at least occurs near the end. Sometimes, it isn't even an NPC do it, you just decide to spill the beans after it no longer matters.

 

[Beoric]

I don't know, it still sounds like a workaround for hooks that doesn't exactly fix anything. Like, instead of the players being given a set of instructions (the hook), they are now being pointed at a specific person who then gives them those instructions (a patron). The end result is still the same though: the module author explaining how I am meant to shoehorn this adventure into my existing campaign material, per their vision. You've just added an extra step, making me responsible for this NPC you've created that I now have to track and deploy throughout my whole campaign.

I'm still in favor of nixing hooks for rumors instead. The beauty of rumors is that they don't need a specific origin source; anyone can carry a rumor and give it at any time, making the whole world into your questgiver.

To be clear, I am trying to fix concerns with a mechanic that I don't use. I also prefer rumors. But I do like interesting NPCs, so I'm always happy to use them if they fit into my campaign.

On a related note, I don't know if everyone does this (and if this sounds odd, then definitely you don't), but what do you call those moments when the party meets an NPC with lots of missing info: i.e. the one that puts the pieces together that the party have been circling around for a long time but haven't quite figured out? Finally they meet the "guy who knows stuff" and lays it out.

In those moments, you are dishing out a chunk of "world story" that is extremely riveting to the players and the antithesis of "boring backstory". You can tell the look on the party's face when it's happening. Someone inevitably shouts out "I knew it!".

"The Big Reveal?"

That moment often wraps up an adventure arc or at least occurs near the end. Sometimes, it isn't even an NPC do it, you just decide to spill the beans after it no longer matters.

I try to resist the temptation to tell the players about the stuff they missed. I prefer to let them wonder, unless there is already someone in-game who would be interested in enlightening them.

 

[squeen]

Yup.

However, we play the long-game, so sometimes its about stuff that has built over years.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

what do you call those moments when the party meets an NPC with lots of missing info: i.e. the one that puts the pieces together that the party have been circling around for a long time but haven't quite figured out?

"The Big Reveal?"

"The Exposition Dump" is what I've always called them. I throw them in there from time to time, when the party doesn't quite pick up what I lay down.

 

[Malrex]

Ok...so no hooks.
Just use rumors. And when you dish out a bunch of rumors and the players look like a deer in headlights...then what do you do?
This doesnt usually happen with my players, but it did during a playtest of City of Vermilion. Because a city should have a bunch of rumors and I layed them down thick while at the tavern, dealing w merchants, or overhearing them while walking the streets. After an hour of them arguing with each other on what to do and what rumors to follow, they picked one rumor that led them out of the city...I think to escape the rumors. And it turned out to be a false rumor. They got a little frustrated, more with each other than me.
Im not bashing rumors, as I think they are critical, but I still believe hooks have an important place in design as well...they can be a welcome doormat for a DM, again with the view of hooks are for DMs not players.

If hooks are not important and can be done without, then why do people critique them during reviews instead of just ignoring them? Why does a good hook deserve praise if its not needed? Why bother looking at them at all?
My guess is that most are a well worn boring welcome mat (guarding a caravan) but people keep looking because a fresh new welcome mat can be a form of inspiration for the DM. And providing something that encourages DM inspiration (much like how I value good art) is a pretty important tool in my opinion.
Much like we all play the game, but in different ways, some may garner inspiration from different avenues. A summary or short backstory is important for relaying info, but not necessarily inspiring. It should relay info quickly, black and white. Hooks add the color.

 

[squeen]

Is the only difference that rumors have to be chased down by the party and hooks take the initiative and approach the players?

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Is the only difference that rumors have to be chased down by the party and hooks take the initiative and approach the players?

No, rumors can be delivered without the characters seeking them. Something casually overheard, for example.

If hooks are not important and can be done without, then why do people critique them during reviews instead of just ignoring them? Why does a good hook deserve praise if its not needed? Why bother looking at them at all?

I mean, that's more a question for the actual review critics lurking (yet never posting) around here... but ultimately people critique things because they can. Because they want to. And in a critique, you hold something to a *personal* standard. If they think a hook is important, they're going to critique a missing hook; if they don't, they won't.

But yes, that was the question I had that spawned this thread, basically. My answer thus far has settled at "hooks are just rumors on rails". They might have a place in one-offs or at the very start of a campaign, but rumors are generally preferable for being less intrusive.

FYI: if your players aren't grabbing at your rumors, it usually means they don't want that kind of adventure. Forcing them into it by using a hook instead of a rumor is not going to make them any happier about it.

 

[Beoric]

To be clear, I am trying to fix concerns with a mechanic that I don't use. I also prefer rumors. But I do like interesting NPCs, so I'm always happy to use them if they fit into my campaign..

I should clarify this, I think I stated it too strongly. I use hooks that arise organically out of my campaign. I pretty much never use published hooks. I would use an interesting NPC that would both fit in my campaign and has a pre-existing connection to a module. If I knew that a particular module might work in my campaign, I would try to introduce the NPC at an earlier stage of the campaign. In which case, I sort of end up treating the information like a rumor, possibly?

I think I have more to say on this, but I have to run to a meeting.

 

[Malrex]

No, rumors can be delivered without the characters seeking them. Something casually overheard, for example.



I mean, that's more a question for the actual review critics lurking (yet never posting) around here... but ultimately people critique things because they can. Because they want to. And in a critique, you hold something to a *personal* standard. If they think a hook is important, they're going to critique a missing hook; if they don't, they won't.

But yes, that was the question I had that spawned this thread, basically. My answer thus far has settled at "hooks are just rumors on rails". They might have a place in one-offs or at the very start of a campaign, but rumors are generally preferable for being less intrusive.

FYI: if your players aren't grabbing at your rumors, it usually means they don't want that kind of adventure. Forcing them into it by using a hook instead of a rumor is not going to make them any happier about it.

That was the problem....they were grabbing onto ALL the rumors and couldn't make up their minds and arguing with each other which to do first. Rumors are my "walls" for a city adventure...there are so many, they get tired of getting spread out into different directions and focus on one.

I think most people use hooks as 'rails' and read them to players....which I will continue to disagree that is the wrong approach for using a hook as it IS intrusive and abrupt and that instead, hooks should be used as a tool for the DM.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

That was the problem....they were grabbing onto ALL the rumors and couldn't make up their minds and arguing with each other which to do first. Rumors are my "walls" for a city adventure...there are so many, they get tired of getting spread out into different directions and focus on one.

My favorite term for this phenomenon is "Overchoice"

I think most people use hooks as 'rails' and read them to players....which I will continue to disagree that is the wrong approach for using a hook as it IS intrusive and abrupt and that instead, hooks should be used as a tool for the DM.

Before pressing the topic, I think it'd be mighty helpful for clarity if you were to provide your definition of "a hook"... or maybe cite a prime example of one?

I'll repost mine for convenience:

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).

 

[EOTB]

Ok...so no hooks.
Just use rumors. And when you dish out a bunch of rumors and the players look like a deer in headlights...then what do you do?
This doesnt usually happen with my players, but it did during a playtest of City of Vermilion. Because a city should have a bunch of rumors and I layed them down thick while at the tavern, dealing w merchants, or overhearing them while walking the streets. After an hour of them arguing with each other on what to do and what rumors to follow, they picked one rumor that led them out of the city...I think to escape the rumors. And it turned out to be a false rumor. They got a little frustrated, more with each other than me.
Im not bashing rumors, as I think they are critical, but I still believe hooks have an important place in design as well...they can be a welcome doormat for a DM, again with the view of hooks are for DMs not players.

If hooks are not important and can be done without, then why do people critique them during reviews instead of just ignoring them? Why does a good hook deserve praise if its not needed? Why bother looking at them at all?
My guess is that most are a well worn boring welcome mat (guarding a caravan) but people keep looking because a fresh new welcome mat can be a form of inspiration for the DM. And providing something that encourages DM inspiration (much like how I value good art) is a pretty important tool in my opinion.
Much like we all play the game, but in different ways, some may garner inspiration from different avenues. A summary or short backstory is important for relaying info, but not necessarily inspiring. It should relay info quickly, black and white. Hooks add the color.

A playtest is a one-shot by definition. So cut with the pretense and just talk to them as playtesters instead of trying to roleplay this stuff via hooks.

 

[Malrex]

My definition of a hook is similar to yours but instead of a 'call to action' I would define it as 'cliff notes (or ideas) for the DM to start the adventure". This is my general way of designing an adventure.

Introduction: A little bit of story time. 1-2 paragraphs about the region, the plot--but no hard clues, etc. Sometimes this can be read/paraphrased to players if a 1 shot.

Summary/Background: A no nonsense spill of the beans description of what's going on in the adventure. No hidden surprises, just the total gist of what the dungeon/adventure is about, and the ending revealed. 1 paragraph is great...but sometimes more is needed if complicated. Sometimes....sometimes....this can lead to a hook, but it usually lacks flowery prose and color/spice. Summary/background is only for DM.

Hooks: Cliff notes for the DM to start the adventure. For planners (i.e. DMs running their own campaigns and reading the adventure first before play) hooks may not be as important, but for a DM just opening the book and running a game within a few minutes, it's a welcome mat and can be helpful to tie rumors/npcs together and give a path to starting the adventure. Hooks are another tool to incorporate faction situations as well as a mix of rumors. They bring in the spice and specifics and should never be read verbatim--rumors should lead to the hook.

Rumors: A critical piece to make an adventure feel alive. Clues for characters to explore or gather information about the region or situation--which can be true or false. Also a tool for the DM to guide characters to follow a hook if needed. And I will preach--rumors shouldn't just be in the tavern, but different rumor tables in different taverns, on the streets, from merchants, from other travelers, from other adventurers in a dungeon. "Make the whole world your quest giver"--YES! Totally agree. Also, a tool for guiding PCs to other parts of an adventure (back to city example, where rumors can guide them to different districts, where they will encounter a whole new bunch of rumors centered around that area, with a few leading them to even further districts/areas).

DM Notes: Anything that needs special attention.

I think overall DP, we agree that rumors are more important than hooks. But I still believe that hooks definitely have a place especially for a DM who lacks time.

A playtest is a one-shot by definition. So cut with the pretense and just talk to them as playtesters instead of trying to roleplay this stuff via hooks.

We playtest differently when its something large and just play it out as we would a campaign. Our 'one-shot' was over a year long and not everything was explored. Feedback is gathered every month or every other month and changes occur during play with written notes. Plus, we roleplay as part of the game, so having them roleplay is part of the playtest for us (it can also generate ideas for the DM to enhance areas or add new ones)---I understand that some have a different gaming style so your mileage will vary. I dont necessarily disagree as getting to the meat of the adventure (does the trap work as intended, this monster too tough, etc.) is important to eventually get too, but just describing how we do it.

Even new, shorter adventures, we usually throw into an existing campaign (if it makes sense) and run it normally as we do anything else. Our players (playtesters) usually don't know they are playtesting something until feedback is asked for. A high level adventure would be more of a one shot perhaps, but even then, our group would probably roleplay stuff out to get a feel for their character. Having said all that, I would say only 15-25% of the time is roleplay (and usually no funny voices (well sometimes if someone is playing 2 PCs) or costumes).

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I think we are largely on the same page - the big difference being that you appear to view hooks as DM-facing information used to orient the DM to the adventure, whereas I see it as player-facing information used to move the players within the adventure. Personally, I'm still a bit unclear as to how you differentiate "hook" from "background", since they both seem to accomplish the same thing (orienting the DM to the adventure), particularly since you state that backgrounds lack the "flowery prose" of a hook, but then also state that hooks shouldn't be read verbatim (so all that flowery prose is just for the DM then?). I'm afraid I don't quite see the distinction.

Regardless of either definition, it still appears that we both agree that hooks shouldn't be mandatory, which was the original intent of my post.

EDIT: A thought just occurred to me - do you consider the adventure "blurb" to be the hook for the adventure? For example, in today's 10FP review, the "blurb" is:

A far away villager tucked under a rarely traveled mountain pass, a storm, attack on the road, the player characters find themselves shivering in the night, waking up drenched in cold waters. The forests are dangerous at night, and the safest way out of here seems to be with a village of starving people.

Is that what you consider the hook of a module? Because maybe that's the source of the disparity between our definitions, as I do not consider that to be the hook (I consider it a marketing hook, but not an adventure hook).

 

[Malrex]

I dont see hooks as a tool to orient the DM to the adventure, that is the Background's job. Hooks are a tool to help the DM start the adventure.
Example

Background
The adventure is about stopping Sammy the Sailor who stole the fastest ship from the king's fleet. It will consist of a sea-faring adventure that leads to an island with a water-filled cavern where Sammy hides the ship and has it guarded by a pet giant squid. The aging king's second son, Jamie, has no way to achieve the crown from his older brother and so he is secretly working with Sammy to start a pirate organization. He actively assisted Sammy in stealing the ship from the harbor by ordering guards to go elsewhere. If the party returns the ship successfully, then Jaimie will try to hire thugs to assassinate the party during or after the king's celebration.

Hook
1. King Richard hires the party to stop Sammy the Sailor and offers 100 gp and a golden flagon with emerald seals on it (500 gp). (Flowery prose may be the wrong thing to say--mainly more specifics and color, like the name of the king, and the flagon. This is an obvious and boring hook).
2. Sammy hires the party to stop anyone from trying to recover the stolen ship. He offers high ranks in his new pirate operation for good work. He believes a party of heroes is coming soon and lets the PCs borrow one of his ships to ambush them.
3. Kahlva the druid is pissed because his favorite tree was used to make the ship. He offers 100 gp to the party to sink it. Only when the ship is sunk and in a watery grave will his grief be over.
4. The sage Ulapus can barely get a sentence out without drooling over himself. He has a need for giant squid ink though and willing to donate his 3 story tower for anyone who brings him a barrel full. He last heard a sailor claiming to have seen a giant squid near an island to the north.

Rumor
1. "Ohh lad, you goin after Sammy? Well he be one of the best sea captains I know of. Best to not chase him near any islands though...he seems to have a keen sense about reefs and most sink when chasing him."
2. "The fellah is ok, but I think he is jealous of his older brother. King wont be around forever don't ya know. I saw them both horseplaying, but Jamie was clearly angry and had murder in his eyes."
3. "Was funny, there were no guards about the night the ship was stolen. Rafe saw a bunch of them at the Drunken Clam betting and drinking into the wee hours."

DM's Notes
It takes roughly 3 days to reach the island depending on the weather. Roll on the weather table once a day.

I think the adventure blurb is a marketing hook trying to pique interest of buyers so they buy the adventure.