• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

Adventure Outline

K

Keklas Rekobah

SOC-14 1K
What is the most widely-accepted form of an adventure outline?

F'rinstance:

0.0.0: TITLE
0.1.0: TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0.0: PLAYER's INFORMATION
1.1.0: PLOT SYNOPSIS
1.1.1: INITIAL SETTING
1.1.2: INITIAL SITUATION
1.2.0: PRE-GEN CHARACTERS
1.3.0: INITIAL HARDWARE
1.3.1: ARMOR & WEAPONS
1.3.2: TRANSPORTATION, PLANETSIDE
1.3.3: TRANSPORTATION, SYSTEMWIDE
1.3.4: TRANSPORTATION, INTERSTELLAR

1.x.x: ... and so forth...

2.0.0: REFEREE's INFORMATION
2.1.0: DETAILED PLOT SYNOPSIS
2.1.1: (2.1.1.a TO 2.1.1.z) SCENES & SETTINGS
2.1.2: SITUATION DEVELOPMENT
2.2.0: NPC's AND THEIR MOTIVATIONS
2.3.0: AVAILABLE HARDWARE
2.3.1: ARMOR & WEAPONS
2.3.2: TRANSPORTATION, PLANETSIDE
2.3.3: TRANSPORTATION, SYSTEMWIDE
2.3.4: TRANSPORTATION, INTERSTELLAR

2.x.x: ... and so forth...

I'm trying to standardize the way I write out my adventures, and the only examples I have on hand are some old Judges Guild products.
 
You might look to DGP's "Adventure Nugget" style.

BTW, I would not use the 1.XXX style of dividing up your sections. It's tedious, and often confusing for the reader. Great for college notes, but not great for us AD/HD types, eh? :confused: :eek:
file_21.gif
 
Do nuggest if you like, or EPIC. But please don't do the leveled numbers systems if you want others to read it. It looks like a university text or even worse like something from I.C.E. of old... :rolleyes:
 
I found it easier to simplify the Adventure Outlines of any Traveller Adventure. Here is my rendition of an adventure outline:

1) Introduction and Synopsis
2) Standards and Assumptions
3) Adventure Information and background
4) Players Information
5) Referees Synopsis and Information:
a) Action Scenes
b) Options
c) Sequence of Events
i. Foundations
ii. The Problem to be Solved
iii. The Confrontation
iv. The Resolution
v. The Climax and Grand Finale
6) Sector Map and Data
7) Referees Resources and Materials (including playing aides)
8) Character Cards

I use this format when creating adventures for essentially T4: Marc Millers Traveller.

Mark G.
 
Most of the suggestions so far can be summarized as follows:

1) Do not use topical index numbers.
2) Write the adventure any other way you want.
3) It's all going to fall apart after the first encounter, anyway.

Mark G's is the most notable exception (Thanx, Mark!).

As for the rest of you; What format do you use to write out an adventure? Do you use any kind of standardized 'just-fill-in-the-blanks' template? If so, what does it look like?
 
I usually write a "this is the situation" first. then I write up a few possible ways to reach the "solution" and I try to populate each and every branch in the story with NPC's. Then I think about a few possible divergent options.

It usually flows after each other in that order in my notebook. Much pageflipping...

I plan to start to use EPIC soon instead.
 
I've looked over the EPIC format. It's not far removed from the story outline form taught in college Creative Writing classes.

I differ with the idea that any adventure would end with the climmax. Imho, there should be some form of denouement - an open discussion of recent events and future plans while sifting through the ashes of the enemy's stronghold, f'rinstance.
 
Originally posted by Keklas Rekobah:
It's not far removed from the story outline form taught in college Creative Writing classes.
Click to expand...
I find it vaguely funny that there is a 'format' for 'creative' writing. That irony just brings a smile to my face...
:D

My own preference is the nugget format, though unfortunately DGP took this wonderful format and abused it badly enough to merit a serious amount of penance..... to me, the strength of the nugget is in the ability to encapsulate key chunks of the adventure into atomic chunks, and then to provide a myriad of ways to link them.

But DGP too often used harsh deus ex machina or arbitrary enforced linkage to cram the players from nugget A to nugget B. I find that slays the whole point of the nugget system, which lets the players find their way from A to B in any of a variety of ways. Properly written, nugget adventures are probably more flexible and resilient than EPIC ones....

I find a couple of things from old CT adventures are wonderous thing for an intro:

- who are the players and what type of group was the adventure designed for and a listing of any required skills or kit (like a ship)
- what dates does the adventure occur at
- where, astrographically, does it happen
- what is a brief two or three sentence synopsis of the adventure

I'd also like to see

- which rules version is the adventure specifically designed for (TNE, T4, T20, etc)
- a comment or two on adaptability to other locales, times, or Traveller systems

The intro should give the at-a-glance look that says what the adventure is, who it is for, and how easy it is for a ref to plunk into his game.

Then a page or two on what the nuggets are and how they interlink to one another and some routes the players might take between them.

Then, after that, a nugget that sort of lays the scene for the players.

Then each of the other nuggets, with a description of how they might get to this nugget, how they might leave this nugget (and to which nuggets they might go), and what happens in this nugget.

This doesn't give itself so much to the 'intro, rising action, climactic conflict, denoument' style of gaming.... it gives itself more to player choice, to player-driven (rather than player-dragged) adventuring, and to scenarios which don't always have a clean textbook enforced ending - sometimes the players bail out to chase another adventure half way through. Sometimes they end things their own way earlier than expected.

This format does have a strength in that it doesn't suffer the principal weakness of the structured narrative - when players manage to break out of that structured plan, GMs often find themselves helpless and frustrated (How do I get them back? Oh no, they've killed X critical NPC before he could tell them Y! etc). With nuggets, since the weave is generally looser and the ties more a web than a string-of-pearls configuration, there are often more obvious ways to get the PCs going back in the right direction.

Any format, EPIC or nugget, or other, can work. A lot has to do with the GM, the players, their natures, etc. Any format can also bomb grotesquely.
 
Okay, here's a sample nugget.

Our overall adventure has the players investigating sightings in a system that is low tech and where local starport has poor sensors and there is little traffic. Every so often, some sees a sensor ghost. Our intrepid players want to investigate because a patron has hired them to do so (looking for her father, lost in the war, and she thinks these might be sightings of a damaged or tumbling ship equiped with an EMM system that still functions intermittently or that has been mostly powered down or something).

You might break the adventure into nuggets:

- intro nugget (introduce the patron and the mission)
- nugget 1: supplying the PC ship
This nugget would deal with the local planet and port, what sort of supplies can be procured, what sort of expertise can be added.
- nugget 2: searching the gas giant
This nugget would describe the local gas giant, some particulars of hazards (perhaps some atmospheric contaminants that make scanning difficult and make skimming harder/risky), and that defines tasks and risks if the players decide to go lower into the atmosphere.
- nugget 3: scanning the asteroid belt
This nugget would describe the belt, any hazards, and perhaps any encounters likely out there.
- nugget 4: free space encounter
This nugget would describe the free space in the system (or particularly some encounters that may occur there with ships and NPCs).
- nugget 5: The INS Flying Dutchman
This nugget would describe the ghost ship, why she is a ghost ship, include deckplans, NPCs, tasks required to detect, salvage, maybe a description of where she might be encountered (perhaps a random table).

Each nugget would be independent but have possible links to the others that could be briefly suggested.

For instance, players may start out at nugget 1 (the port), go to nugget 4 (a free space encounter), then on to nugget 3 (scan the belt), then back to nugget 4 (another free space encounter), and based off information given by an NPC in nugget 4, might then go to nugget 2 (the gas giant) and there (as luck would have it) discover nugget 5, the ship, in a decaying orbit, having been recently captured by the gas giant. Then the party might salvage the ship and return to nugget 1, the port, for refurb, parts, port facilities, etc.

So there isn't a particular A->B->C->we're done format here like there is with narrative... just suggestions of possible web-like interconnections and encapsulation of key data within the relevant nugget. Nuggets can be big or small - whatever size is justified by their particular significance. What identifies nuggets is "things which could be independent from one another" and sometimes "places" or "people". If you have a big nugget, you can often break it into a bunch of smaller sub-nuggets.

Is that any clearer?
 
Remember the old saying, "You can't see the forest for the trees," too many writer focus on the parts of adventure writing that they seem to miss the story behind the adventure. Adventuring is in fact telling a story inside your adventure or campaign. The three basic elements in a story is Character, Setting and Plot, any good writer knows this. With these elements, there would be direction in the adventure from beginning to end. My outline format in simple yet effective in writing advantures for Traveller and any other RPG system.
 
Originally posted by Mark G.:
Remember the old saying, "You can't see the forest for the trees," too many writer focus on the parts of adventure writing that they seem to miss the story behind the adventure. Adventuring is in fact telling a story inside your adventure or campaign. The three basic elements in a story is Character, Setting and Plot, any good writer knows this. With these elements, there would be direction in the adventure from beginning to end. My outline format in simple yet effective in writing advantures for Traveller and any other RPG system.
Click to expand...
I'll agree with you on two of the three, but disagree on the third. You need Character - both that of your players, defined enough to give them motivations, weaknesses, strengths, interests, history, etc. and on behalf of your NPCs (similarly) and of course goals for the NPCs! (aka agendas). You need Setting - imagery, description, rules of how it might play into the game, etc.

But Plot? No thank you (at least to some extent). I find too many GMs and module writers approach this as if it is *their* story to tell and script the whole thing. The Players then become spectators, being dragged or pushed or arbitrarily launched from scene to scene.

Plot is something the NPCs can have some hand on, but the Players, if they wish to feel involved, must have a large hand in crafting.

This is *NOT* a story written by a single author. It is a *game* participated in by a group of people, all of whom must have their input and all of whose participation should be sought. It is, at best (if you stretch the analogy) a chain-story or consensus reality. But I rather prefer that one think of it as providing a setting to let the *Players* tell their story. Nothing frustrates players (depends a bit on the player group, I give you that) more than have them feeling the GM is telling *his or her story* and that the Players own interests and goals are... not relevant.

The advantage of the nugget format, when properly used, is that it helps the GM to create a less tightly scripted adventure and leaves the Players to set the pace, direction and to tell *their* stories, with the GM there to facilitate.

This can be done with any adventure layout, but those who use EPIC or the equivalent seem more like they should be writing fiction than playing a game with other equals (and you should view your players as equals, I strongly feel). It is, at the end of the day, a game. That brings with it some differences from a simple story and those have to be respected.
 
The plot MUST be character-driven. Otherwise, the game turns into 'Referee's Storybook Time'.

I see RPG's in general as more of a 'Traveller at the Improv'.

F'rinstance, the director (the referee) gives the initial setting, situation, and goal to the actors (the players), and then turns them loose to see how the actors achieve that goal.

"... you three are former Merchant Marines who have left the service. You have a lot of Imperial credits in your accounts. Nearby, there is a red-light district, a Mercenary Recruitment office, and Crazy Cal's Used Starship Emporium. Where are you going, and what are you going to do?"

Of course, a completely freewheeling adventure might be more than even the most talented ref could handle, what with each character going in a different direction. So, if the characters realize that every choice in the game has a consequence - some unforeseen by the player - they may end up determining their own plot, and expect the ref to stick to it!

... and then there are those nasty red herrings...
 
Originally posted by kaladorn:
But Plot? No thank you (at least to some extent). I find too many GMs and module writers approach this as if it is *their* story to tell and script the whole thing. The Players then become spectators, being dragged or pushed or arbitrarily launched from scene to scene.
Click to expand...
I basically agree. But...

I realise lots of refs enjoy creating adventures, and for them that is the game, but I'm more interested in running them. So I'd rather buy/download as much of my material as I can, and when I do make stuff up I want most of it to be used. Hence, I do like to limit the PCs simply for the purposes of efficiency.

I have this concept I call "the freedom of the goldfish bowl". The PCs can do pretty much what they want if they stay in bounds.

These bounds can be established in-character and in-game, e.g.:
- the traders have a charter contract for that cluster, where adventure awaits their arrival (c.f. Kursis Charter)
- the intel types are working for someone who'll tell them where the next problem is and leave them to choose their methods
- taking a specialised rift trader outside the rift zone is unprofitable, but there's plenty to do in the rift (where you've done your homework)
- the cops find that all clues about the conspiracy point to location X, which is where you've got floorplans and NPCs

It's not exactly railroading, you just give them a reason to stay within your bounds. It cuts down on the ref's workload. It can speed up play quite handily as well, because you're more likely to have prepared materials.
 
I understand the pragmatic concerns.

But, it is a good idea to develop a dialog with the players early on (even before starting), and define the way the campaign will flow. If they all think that getting a free trader means they can go where *they* want to, when *they* want to, pursuing *their* interests, then the GM starts each adventure with "you're going here to do this task or pickup this contract", they might well feel they haven't got any control of direction, etc.

I know, as a player, I've felt railroaded often enough. And lots of official modules use shortcuts like "no matter what the PCs do, they're knocked out and taken prisoner" to advance between scenes, which is not only a cop out, but might well not make sense if one of your players it the foremost martial artist in that section of the Rim.

It is a matter of balance, but it is a good idea to bring your players into the act of choosing direction.

And I too have run into players from whom you couldn't pull a piece of input with grav-pliers.... so I am aware this also hinges on the player group you have to work with.
 
Morte, the 'Freedom of the Goldfish Bowl' is also called 'Bounded Chaos' - molecules can move seemingly at random, but only within the confines of their container.

To me, this is the ideal case. A fully-detailed, yet closed, environment allowing for freedom of choice within certain inviolable limits. Sorta like being turned loose on a TL9 world with several billions credits, a pocket full of Imperial pardons, and no way to leave the planet.

This is why my original question involved the term 'Adventure Outlines'. I'm not interested in being a cattle drover or a sheep herder leading a group of PC's to an inevitable slaughter. I'm much more interested in providing different paths for the players to reach their own goals.

This is like writing a BASIC program without GOSUB or GOTO statements, in that every outcome is conditionally dependent upon preceding events.
 
Originally posted by kaladorn:

But, it is a good idea to develop a dialog with the players early on (even before starting), and define the way the campaign will flow.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
I should have said that myself...

And lots of official modules use shortcuts like "no matter what the PCs do, they're knocked out and taken prisoner" to advance between scenes, which is not only a cop out, but might well not make sense if one of your players it the foremost martial artist in that section of the Rim.
Click to expand...
Yep. I can see why they do it some of the time -- pre-scripted logic can't cater to all combinations of PC ability/inclination -- but it's annoying and it's too frequent.

When that happens, I override it and let them re-write the story. If I read an adventure and find myself thinking "Sir David could just buy the environment suits out of pocket instead of doing the merc job to pay for them", I either let him or I decide I won't be running this adventure.

If it's a well-conceived adventure, where the events/circumstances/motivations make sense, it tends to survive this sort of thing gracefully. I wish more writers would learn to produce fairly open-ended adventures, which present the PCs with a situation rather than leading them though a story. [Hmm, you already said that...]

While they're at it, they could give them nice easy hooks and flexible settings to plug into campaigns, e.g. "this adventure works on any TL8+ world with an inhabited land surface" not "this adventure requires the PCs to visit planet X (0123) in the Crucis Margin sector (which is unique in the Gateway domain and 26 parsecs away)".
 
Originally posted by Morte:
If it's a well-conceived adventure, where the events/circumstances/motivations make sense, it tends to survive this sort of thing gracefully. I wish more writers would learn to produce fairly open-ended adventures, which present the PCs with a situation rather than leading them though a story. [Hmm, you already said that...]
Click to expand...
Precise-a-mundo, Monsieur. C'est vrai. You have hit on the head what I was getting at.

While they're at it, they could give them nice easy hooks and flexible settings to plug into campaigns, e.g. "this adventure works on any TL8+ world with an inhabited land surface" not "this adventure requires the PCs to visit planet X (0123) in the Crucis Margin sector (which is unique in the Gateway domain and 26 parsecs away)".
Click to expand...
That's why, with LEW's help, I'm working on an article which rates all the published adventures for CT/MT I can get my hands on in terms of their flexibility - temporal, spacial, and game version wise. It should be a tool to help people decide if a given classic adventure would be of any use to them.

Lee's Guide and a few other CT products did just what you say - adventures were specified as

'requires a planet as follows
size: 4-8
atmo: 5-8
hyd: 4-8
pop: 5-9
gov: 5
law: any
tech: 9+
'

And then it goes on to recommend candidates in the spinward marches and the solomani rim, and usually several of each.

Now *that* was how to write a useful adventure!
 
Gentlemen,

A very interesting thread and complete with comments I most heartily agree with. As Mr. Barclay points out; and as others have written, the most useful adventure is one that the GM can easily transport into his campaign. The example from "Lee's Guide" is a good one; listing the various UWP stats necessary for the adventure and then listing probable candidates in two sectors.

I'd like to present how I visualize the 'plot' or 'story' within each adventure and how I view the PCs' interactions with it. I'm an engineer and my mental pictures are rather weird, so please excuse me in advance.

Each NPC; whether a fully formed antagonist and rival or a simple information point, has a 'line' towards a goal they are following. The 'line' belonging to the grumpy shipping clerk the PCs deal with may be something as simple and small as 'can't wait until my shift is over and these people leave.' while the 'line' belonging to an antagonist or rival may be 'screw them out that cargo' or 'cover up for that crime' or something else equally as complex and big. When all these 'lines' are run together the 'cloth' or 'field' of the adventure is created.

The PCs don't see and aren't aware of the entire 'cloth' or 'field'. Each of the NPCs' 'lines' are jagged, up and down zigzags as it were. The PCs only see the various 'peaks' and not the slopes and valleys, like mountain tops sticking out of a cloud or islands out of the sea. The PCs might not even be aware that certain 'peaks' are connected to the same 'line'. These 'peaks' are where the PCs interact or intersect with the adventure. The GM must be aware of the slopes and valleys, but he really only needs to detail the 'peaks' because that is all the PCs will be aware of.

The PCs do not see all of the 'peaks' at once. The PCs move across the 'field' or 'cloth' in discrete time intervals and only certain 'peaks' can be seen at any given time. NPC 'lines' can run alongside each other, cross one another, distract the PCs from others lines, and generally get all mixed up. Further adding to this muddle is the fact that the various NPC 'lines' do not remain fixed. As the PCs intersect with them, the lines change forming new 'peaks' for the PCs to become aware of in the future.

Imagine the adventure in question revolves around the PCs' ship being hijacked. The GM creates an NPC 'line' for the hijackers and weaves that into the 'cloth' of the campaign. The NPCs may plan on having a ringer hired by the PCs, then taking passage on their ship, and then attempting the hijacking. The reason(s) behind the hijacking need not be detailed just yet as the PCs will not be looking into that problem yet. As far as the PCs are concerned, the NPCs' 'line' would begin when their 2nd engineer is accosted by thugs in an alley. If the engineer gets thumped, the 'line' moves on as planned. If the engineer kicks booty, the 'line' then shifts to the NPCs' next plan to get a ringer aboard the PCs' vessel. The PCs, through their unwitting actions, may avert the hijacking plot altogether! They may prevent the placement of a ringer aboard and, with that being a prerequisite for the NPCs, they'd shift to another target and the hijacking 'line' would disappear.

Note; the PCs don't know that their engineer getting jumped in an alley is part of a hijacking attempt, that is the future of this 'line' and the PCs don't even know a 'line' exists! It is just an event, who knows if it is linked to anything?

Well, I warned you it was weird! However, that is the fuzzy mental pixture I had in mind as a GM and still have in mind when I try my hand at writing adventures.


Sincerely,
Larsen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top