How to write adventures - I keep talking about scene based design

I'm continuing my thinking on adventure design, and have now come to how I've planned out my Savage Worlds scenarios. Since I've heard so much about how great this game is for cons, I designed scenarios from that. I've listened to how people often use a scene based design to fit in the time constraints, and that fit me perfectly.

So, I wanted to do something with a lot of feel of the X-files. Since I started from that, it was very natural for me to think of a scene that introduce the mystery and then play the intro and then introduce the characters. Since I was not writing a TV-show, I did think up the first part, but we started play when the players entered the plot.

The first scene would utilize the outcome of the background scene as its "bang". So I imagined a miner in this small community being attacked by his whole kennel of dogs, and how his fiance would see it and panic. That was what had just happened. Then I planned on putting the PCs in that small mining town, fill it with NPCs and build scenes from character interaction and some"plot based" scenes that would exhibit more of the strangeness that was the basis for the hounds attacking the miner.

The main plot was that the miners had dug deep into the Appalachians in West Virginia, and uncovered Cthonians. They reacted by psionic mind controls and called in their minions. I planned to have some weird things happening, like the MIB show up and discourage the PCs from snooping, and finally have the fiance disappear only to call someones phone and lure them out into the wilds at night. I had decided that after fooling around like that, I would end it with a scene where the PCs found them somehow confronting "aliens" in a strong light and finally finding themselves with redacted memories in their car out on the highway.

So, how did it go, and how did I used the scene based design?

Well, I started with the players taking control. They came to the town, and started talking to people. I decided to take a cue from Vincent Baker's advice in Dogs in the Vineyard, and started to give away as much as possible from all the NPCs. Vincent is wise, for without that they would have stumbled!

Talking to the NPCs, the characters were set in a location, some people were there and that was often the extent of my scene framing. I did not include any "bangs" or any destabilizing events into those interpersonal interactions.

In between those I dropped some small bombs in the shape of scenes with not only location and people, but also destabilizing events. It turned out that those scenes which all had things happening they had to react to did work really well. I totally failed to make one of them a chase scene with the Savage Worlds chase rules, but that was only me at odds with that rules set, and I've posted about that in other posts.

Worth noting here is that I did not introduce any shakeups in the "interview" scenes we had. Maybe I should have, because I sometimes felt that all those individuals with cool stories to tell had to walk up to the player characters more often than being sought out. It might be something that is dependent on how proactive your players are, but I did take that with me to my next attempt. It was my greatest lesson from this kind of adventure design.

Then there was that about how to string scenes together. In this scenario, which I called "Deep Calls to Deep", the players had the choice of going where they wanted and talking to whomever they choose. That kind of made it very natural for me to toss in my bombs after they had learned stuff which would make the next thing happening feel more cool. It made for a fairly natural flow, I would think.

All in all I think it went well, and as far as I understood from the after game chat I had nailed the X-Files feel. Nobody ever got any hint it was a Cthulhuoid menace.

But, what could I make different, and better, the next time? I will talk a bit about stringing scenes together next time.

How to write adventures - I keep talking about location based design

So, what were my experiences from Location Based Design for my adventure?

I had decided to play a game of Mutant, one of the earliest games I ever played for any extended time. It's a BRP game, which really looks a lot like Gamma World. Mutated anthropomorphic animals for the win! Thanks to those qualities I could inject lot of humour and jokes about contemporary events.

The backstory say that some kind of catastrophe occurred, and humankind escaped into subterranean bunkers, and only ventured outside when long time had passed. Knowledge of the old times have faded, and now mutants of all kinds roamed the lands. I decided to make the PCs all be part of a secret project to develop psychic powers, and they had all been put to cryogenic sleep. Now they wake up, with hazy memories and can explore the setting with no preconceived ideas, as they knew as much as their characters did.

 My location was a small village, with a sawmill powered by an artifact from the Old Days. The village was basically ruled and run by the robber baron that owned the artifact. I made up a few enemies of his, some shops and people in the village and let the players loose.

Like I wrote about yesterday I had the map, the location in question. The threat I envisioned was the tension in the village between the rich ruler and his "subjects". In order to make it something the players could not just ignore I also invented an NPC with a personal vendetta against the baron, and a timeline for how it would play out.

So, how did it work?

The biggest problem I think was related to the reasons for the PCs to be there. They woke up, and some mutated badgers brought them to the baron and the basically followed along. While they did walk around a bit, they never did take strong action for or against any of the sides in the village. I think I learned that the threat has to be immediate, and personal. If you have very pro-active players they might make things up for themselves, but I think having a clear, threat, is a good idea. It's first now when I look back at it and try to formulate what the components were that I settled on that term.

I claim this is one of the basic forms of design for an adventure. Some call this fish tank or sandbox. I'd prefer to shine the light on the Location. Why? Because a sandbox is just a somewhat flat area, of a common material. I think a location based adventure has to be much more, and that's why I never have had much success with "sandboxes". A Location has to be strange, worth investigating and exploring and there has to be a clear threat looming large and personal. At least that's the theory.

Next up I'll take a closer look at the Scene Based Design.

Some more thoughts on Ars Magica

My last post on Ars Magica had 187 views, and only one comment about someone who had actually played the game. I think it's kind of telling that they basically ripped the themes from the game and ditched the rest.

It seems like AM is a game many people have read, been very impressed by and then not played as written! I guess that those who kept the covenant management system are the same kind of people who play merchant campaigns in Traveller, keeping tabs on earnings, losses and mortgage payment. I have enough of that in real life.

The really detailed magic system is another matter. It seems like everyone loves the idea of being able to craft spells on the fly and using some kind of and system, just like spell points and all those ideas. But, even though I'm not a fan of the classic system of D&D it's easy and it works, even though it lacks flavour. Maybe this is the part of AM which actually change how people play.

Then there's that part which I find kind of funny, namely the "troupe style play", which is actually just they old way to play, reinvented. Having multiple characters per player is not new, and that I've even tried myself with great success.

"it is recommended that the GM keep the number of players in his party small - two or three players with up to four characters apiece is ideal."

That's T&T 5th ed. from 1979.  Something old, something new, something borrowed and something blue. Maybe I'll get to run Ars Magica one day, and then it will be nothing like written, I bet.

Ars Magica - the game I would love to love

Sometimes I'm reminded of games which promised, but never delivered. For me one such game is Ars Magica. But, I still have some hope for it. Maybe you can help me? First some background.

A friend of mine bought the 2nd ed game, and we loved the idea of it. We went nuts with all the possibilities inherent in the system of Merits and Flaws. I shudder to think what would have happened had we found out about GURPS...

We generated tons of characters for that game, but never played more than a try out session to see if we could do a fight and cast a spell.

Some years later, when we had done the same with 3rd ed I actually got to play it, now in its 4th ed. It turned out we spent forever generating a covenant, planning its location, planning how to staff the kitchen and how many guards we needed and how much we would earn each year, spend on taxes and...

You get the picture.

I've now done that a few times. It bores me to tears.

Where's the game about a mythic Europe and the wonders of magic? If anyone know of an actual play recording from a podcast or similar which shows how the game can be that and not quartermaster-in-the-middle-ages please tell!

I'd love to hear some people play the game. Playing it when it's fun.

Filling in tax return forms and using MS Excel is not my way of fun, not even with magic.

Feel free to suggest some actual play recordings, if they exist!