Slightly embarrassed GM would like some adventure help

First the set up Game is D&D 4E 5 players Character Lv. is 10 I'm gonna baby step here this will be going from Lv.10 to Lv. 11 or should I have a wider Lv gain adventure My main problem is I can come up with ideas but taking those ideas & forming a story is where I need help My story idea is to have the very NPC that hires or request help from the PCs is the very boss (bad guy they will end up facing. Basically getting the PCs do his/her dirty work them then taking advantage of the rewards/spoils the PCs have gained then destroy them of course got to throw in the old bad guy speech before they die speech (thank you for doing this for me fools etc etc etc,) First a math check according to building an encounter Easy is 1-2 Lv lower than party Standard is = party Lv to + 1 party Lv & Hard is +2 to +4 party Lv. On average, it takes a character eight to ten encounters to gain a level, with the possible addition of a major quest to go from Lv.10 which is 20.500 to Lv. 11 which is 26000 for 1 pc so then X 5 PCs that's 130,000 xp so divided by 10 encounters that's 13.000 xp per encounter ? or is that for the whole adventure? I'm messing up some where now then there should only be 1 easy and 1 hard encounter in an adventure so the rest would be standard

To be honest, I make my party level up when I feel like it, regardless of the number of encounter they had. It's usually every 2 session. What I am trying to say is ... you are the GM ... you can do whatever you want.

Moved to Off-Topic

If you're going with the big bad hiring the PCs, at the very least be prepared for them either not realising it, or just joining him and going evil.

Don D. said: First the set up Game is D&D 4E 5 players Character Lv. is 10 I'm gonna baby step here this will be going from Lv.10 to Lv. 11 or should I have a wider Lv gain adventure An adventure that spans a single level is just fine. My main problem is I can come up with ideas but taking those ideas & forming a story is where I need help My story idea is to have the very NPC that hires or request help from the PCs is the very boss (bad guy they will end up facing. Basically getting the PCs do his/her dirty work them then taking advantage of the rewards/spoils the PCs have gained then destroy them of course got to throw in the old bad guy speech before they die speech (thank you for doing this for me fools etc etc etc,) D&D DMs do not make stories - that's what White Wolf Storytellers do. In D&D, we create stories with the players by playing the game , the story being the things that happened while we played (however that turns out). Thus, the DM only ever needs to create the game because the story is a byproduct of having a good time playing. D&D itself is a game system used for creating games. So what kind of game would you like to create? DMs can create plots or situations . A plot presumes player character actions e.g. "First they talk to the quest-giver, then they get attacked by bandits on the way to the dungeon, then they get to the dungeon, explore it, and then they capture the goblin shaman and question him and find out that..." A situation, on the other hand, is something interesting that is unfolding that does not presume PC actions. It would be something like, "There's a dungeon outside of town and bandits in the area and a quest-giver needs help with these things." In a sandbox setting, you might note what happens if the player characters don't get involved. In a one-shot or episodic campaign or the like, you'll want to get the players' buy-in on going on this quest-giver's quest, preferably before you put together the scenario or else they may just say "No" and you're screwed because you did prep work that isn't seeing play. Never offer a choice to characters that isn't really a choice. Get player buy-in on the premise first. In either case, you're going to need at a bare minimum the location(s) of the adventure, the NPCs, and the monsters. If you go with a plot, that's additional work on top (and loaded with pitfalls if you don't communicate the fact that there is a plot to be followed). And in any case, part of your idea is predicated upon a duplicitous reveal. The quest-giver-turned-villain is a classic D&D trope, but it can backfire on you and it's likely certain someone will see it coming from a mile away. I can't recommend it. First a math check according to building an encounter Easy is 1-2 Lv lower than party Standard is = party Lv to + 1 party Lv & Hard is +2 to +4 party Lv. On average, it takes a character eight to ten encounters to gain a level, with the possible addition of a major quest to go from Lv.10 which is 20.500 to Lv. 11 which is 26000 for 1 pc so then X 5 PCs that's 130,000 xp so divided by 10 encounters that's 13.000 xp per encounter ? or is that for the whole adventure? I'm messing up some where now then there should only be 1 easy and 1 hard encounter in an adventure so the rest would be standard Advancement from 10th to 11th takes 5500 XP. Figuring 5 players, that puts you at 27,500 XP for that one adventure. Spend it on as many encounters as you like. Don't forget skill challenges and major and minor quest rewards.

My main problem is I can come up with ideas but taking those ideas & forming a story is where I need help I recommend talking to your players about the kind of "story" they'd like to play. Do they want to be heroes? Do they want to be freebooters? Do they want to explore? Do they want to fight? Do they want intrigue? Are their particular challenges or types of locations they'd like to interact with? What is the theme? What is the focus? What matters? It's not necessary to give everything or anything away to the players about what you are going to run, but a conversation to get everyone on the same page is immensely helpful.

The Unethical Llama said: If you're going with the big bad hiring the PCs, at the very least be prepared for them either not realising it, or just joining him and going evil. well there is no Evil PCs allowed in my games so that eliminates that problem. However realizing the bad guy for what he really is right off the bat would be horrific for me with all that prepping

Don D. said: The Unethical Llama said: If you're going with the big bad hiring the PCs, at the very least be prepared for them either not realising it, or just joining him and going evil. well there is no Evil PCs allowed in my games so that eliminates that problem. However realizing the bad guy for what he really is right off the bat would be horrific for me with all that prepping Just saying "no evil PCs" is a time-tested and rather iffy method of eliminating problems. It's also very iffy to rest your entire game on information the players either must or must not know. Players who are bought-in can play along even when they know the score (which most players do, really, even when their poor GMs think they've been clever). Even players who are not bought-in will gamely go along so as not to spoil the fun of their friend, the GM, who put in all that prep. Prep is always risky, though. You can't guarantee that anything you created will every see the light of day, or be enjoyed if it is. If you railroad the players so that they definitely will encounter and deal with and figure out (or not) the stuff you've created, pretty soon the players will figure out it something is up. Again, the bought-in players will go along, since it's clear you want them to, but lots of players will rail against such forcing, either passively or actively. Don't put yourself in that position. Prep all you want, do what you enjoy, but do it only for yourself and be prepared to set it all aside if necessary. We can offer advice as to how to do that, but it mostly comes down to having the players on your side.

how about several different angles that lead to the same encounters you've prepped you know all roads lead to the same place only for differant reasons

Don D. said: how about several different angles that lead to the same encounters you've prepped you know all roads lead to the same place only for differant reasons That's a plot because you're presuming player character action. You've added a layer of illusionism over the surface of it to obscure that it's a plot. IF your players are not aware of a plot and believe you are offering them true freedom of choice because that's how you advertised your game, then you are railroading. You would not be railroading if you told them that all roads lead to Rome and they were cool with it. They might even buy into the illusion of choice. So the best course of action here is to tell the players up-front what they're getting into so that you can avoid claims of railroading. Railroading is about breaking the social contract, not about adhering to plots. So go get their agreement to follow your plot. The plot of the quest-giver-turned-villain hinges upon the players accepting the quest, going on it, returning, and then listening to his villainous monologue about how he duped them. Those are all potential points of failure along the storyline because they could choose otherwise at any point along the way. So my recommendation would be to ask the players if it's okay to assume they've taken this quest for reasons they are free to establish and that they have reason to suspect the quest-giver isn't above-board, also for reasons they are free to establish. Then get to the action and do your reveal as the final scene. Once it's been revealed that they've done the villain's handiwork, ask them what interesting challenge they think would arise from that situation and do that next.

Don D. said: how about several different angles that lead to the same encounters you've prepped you know all roads lead to the same place only for differant reasons Also iffy, and very easy for players to spot. All it takes is a "We go this way, wait, no we meant the other way" for the GM to start in on the encounter description and then be forced to start in on the same description stemming from the opposite choice. If you have things you want or need the players to do, try telling them. If what you propose is interesting to the players, they'll help you come up with reasons why their characters would do or interact with it.

True it was said some where by some one to ask the players what type of game do you want

Whoever said it, it's damn good advice. Unlike other games, RPGs (perhaps even especially D&D) suffer from this thing where every single person that sits down to play a game can have totally different expectations for said game. Rarely does anyone take the time to hash out all those expectations and that can result in bad experiences and broken groups. Good gaming experiences and groups that last are built on a foundation of shared expectation and understanding. So such a conversation can certain be a benefit.

I've found that for me building a game up like a mystery helps if your building a plot. All you really need to do in a mystery is give the players some questions they can't figure out by simply smashing goblin A over the head with sword B. Don't give them all the answers right away and when you do give them an answer it should actually lead to more questions. And if theres one line of questioning or evidence they are really caught up on keep dangling that carrot out in front of them but don't give them the full answer for a long time, maybe never. You also don't need to know all the answers either, thats something you can piece togther along the way. Don't worry about where story has to go, just have a couple of rough key points you can toss in along the way. You can have a rough idea of an end point but don't be to specific, they players should start piecing together clues for you which should allow to see how they want the story to go which you can take to mix with your thoughts and meet somehwhere in the middle.

I'd just like to mirror the smart guys in this post. Headhunter and Paul have great advice, some of the best GM advice I've seen actually (throughout the website). If you and your group go with a Plotted Storyline, try looking at a published module and mimicking the format. Not the content, mind you, but how it's laid out. They typically follow a part 1, 2 , 3 model and each part has several key encounters/problem resolutions. These stories can be fun to play through when the group is following the story like good fiction characters. Some even prefer this to a sandbox or open concept game. But, like the two guys above me have already said, get the groups input on the game or you will feel the frustration. I have experienced it before and it sucks. ;) good luck!

can someone explain what people mean when they are saying "players buy-in". Are we talking about some sort of agreement on what the scope of the game is or something?

Weston M. said: can someone explain what people mean when they are saying "players buy-in". Are we talking about some sort of agreement on what the scope of the game is or something? The example I like is Star Trek. Star Trek is ridiculous. The science and even the plots make almost no sense at all. If someone is "bought-in" they think Star Trek is awesome and sensical and utterly consistent. If it's pointed out that it's not, they'll spring to its defense and offer in-universe explanations for why something is or isn't. When someone is bought-in to something, they want that thing to work, they don't have to be shown how that works. In roleplaying games, as with any fiction, the story, scenario and world aren't 100% consistent and unassailable. Players who want to can pick it apart and argue with it. Players who don't want to, and would rather engage with the game are "bought in" and will justify any inconsistencies for themselves, or overlook them entirely. It's about people being on the same side and the same page.

That seems reasonable, yes. And I know I've been guilty of being "that guy" before. I get the feeling like this is a bigger topic, but what are some good ways to engage players as to cause them to "buy-in" to your setting or campaign?

It's very much related to the topic and thanks for asking honest questions about it. And, actually, asking questions and being honest is the way you get buy-in. Just talk about your idea and see what ideas the players have. Put your ideas forward with enthusiasm and what you think it will be like, but don't try to sell them and try to be detached so that if your ideas aren't interesting to others you won't take offense. Come to an agreement on what you all like and then do that. The more of your players' ideas you use, the more buy-in you're likely to get since their own ideas will generally be more plausible to them that the ideas of others. If that sounds stupid-simple, it's because it is. And yet we rarely have these discussions as a hobby until there's a major group-splintering problem.

Weston M. said: That seems reasonable, yes. And I know I've been guilty of being "that guy" before. I get the feeling like this is a bigger topic, but what are some good ways to engage players as to cause them to "buy-in" to your setting or campaign? Yep, talk to them, like Headhunter said. Even the people who wrote Star Trek listened to fan feedback and probably ran focus groups and screenings. People tend to buy in to things they had a hand in creating. Buy in is about not wanting to see a thing fail, and we hate seeing our own creations fail. So, bringing players into the creation process really generates buy-in fast.

well I think a big problem I have is I see these modules with such great sites, maps & background on it all including NPCs and who they are & what there roles are in the adventure & think to myself god I wish I had the talent to do that & become overwhelmed before I even start

All you got to do for an adventure is to have a goal, and then everything else is an obstacle to that goal. How they go about overcoming those obstacles is their business, but give em three ways each to overcome obstacles. In the story of employer is bad guy, okay your bad guy there is the villain, the obstacles in front of them relate to what they THINK the original obstacles might be (which may or may not be revealed to them ahead of time). So two thirds of the way through the villain beats them up, drops them off a cliff etc, then they use thier native skills gear and allies to figure out a way to turn the tables. The new goal at that point is to best the real employer villain. If you try and wrap up the adventure with the villain's turn it won't feel complete, even if they win that skirmish. Basically because if they win at that point it WAS TOO EASY. They need to get beat down in the villain's ambush, and THEN figure out coming from behind how to fix his wagon. Then they either get treasure or whatever the original mission was for or whatever. I don't worry about buy in. We're playing D&D. Buy in is accepting that you can have barbarians and Rangers and guys that can do whirlwind attack, and female warriors with two swords in chainmail bikini killing 20 orcs a round on their off days. Prep, do lots of prep but not on plot. On things you can throw in there to punch it up or have at hand, an orc unit attacks and all the stats are laid out on a card for quick reference. 12 random treasures or items pre-rolled. We search the orcs, what do we find? whip out a card. I like drawing up towns and mountain ranges and dungeons that the players may or may not ever visit it's not wasted, it's flavor for me to write, and practice thinking about how a scenario might flow or be directed, or to just practice working with the game system. Then one day the players say let's do a dungeon bash! Boom you trot out a 5 level dungeon you have been working on the side to sketch out for some months, and play it for weeks. That's how I do it. Paul and Mr. Jones obviously do not.

Don D. said: well I think a big problem I have is I see these modules with such great sites, maps & background on it all including NPCs and who they are & what there roles are in the adventure & think to myself god I wish I had the talent to do that & become overwhelmed before I even start Don't look to modules for examples of what to do. I wouldn't advise that at all. They're bloated and much of the work is not necessary. Most of it is there just to get the writer's point across to the reader. You don't need to get your own point across to yourself! Here are some prep tips if you care to read them that may put things into perspective.

Don D. said: well I think a big problem I have is I see these modules with such great sites, maps & background on it all including NPCs and who they are & what there roles are in the adventure & think to myself god I wish I had the talent to do that & become overwhelmed before I even start You, my friend, are bought-in, hard. As Headhunter says, most of those modules, end of the day, are crap and must be completely dismantled, reworked and cannibalized for most groups, mainly because they're not written with specific players or GMs in mind. Yours will be. Good luck.

Modules are okay, and sometimes great, not because they tell you how to write stories but they show you how to organize things. The whole key to writing is small steps. Tolkien took years to write lord of the rings. But he started one word at a time. none of those writers are super men with special abilities, but they write for a living, so it is just work. The reason they have al of those NPcs and things set up is so that you do not have to make it up on the spot, so you read the modules go through and see how would i play this guy, that guy, study a half dozen modules in depth and then you'll know how to do it. Without a structure to hang it on, you'll be hard pressed to run it in the kind of style being advised by Paul and Headhunter. Doing it the way they do takes knowing the basics, knowing the rules FIRST to know what rules to break. Otherwise you might get lost in the fog of asking players what they want and trying to please everyone and thus there's no cohesion. I'm not saying do not take player input but study a few modules to see how they work like a writer reads the works of others to see How It Is Done. then they write their own. Good luck.

Heck, I recommend playing a few modules, just to see why they don't work. And it's not really about knowing what rules to break. Most of it is about realizing that most of the rules aren't necessary, and are only one way to resolve a given situation, that they're not inherently fun and aren't a recipe. It's not figuring out if you can leave out the chocolate chips or substitute caro (hint: you can't) it's more like saying, hey we know what's cool, what's a way we could simulate that? For most RPGs, all you need are the basic conflict resolution mechanic. The rest is just frosting, and often bad frosting. Like mint, or some crap.

Weston M. said: can someone explain what people mean when they are saying "players buy-in". Are we talking about some sort of agreement on what the scope of the game is or something? I also discuss it here: <a href="https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/516796/buy-in" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/516796/buy-in</a>

So two thirds of the way through the villain beats them up, drops them off a cliff etc, then they use thier native skills gear and allies to figure out a way to turn the tables. The new goal at that point is to best the real employer villain. What if the villain is unable to beat them up? What if having their characters beaten up is not fun for them? They need to get beat down in the villain's ambush, and THEN figure out coming from behind how to fix his wagon. What if they're ambushed, but not beaten? I don't worry about buy in. We're playing D&D. Buy in is accepting that you can have barbarians and Rangers and guys that can do whirlwind attack, and female warriors with two swords in chainmail bikini killing 20 orcs a round on their off days. Not everyone actually enjoys all that. You're actually proving the need for buy-in with that statement. Prep, do lots of prep but not on plot. On things you can throw in there to punch it up or have at hand, an orc unit attacks and all the stats are laid out on a card for quick reference. 12 random treasures or items pre-rolled. We search the orcs, what do we find? whip out a card. Prep only as much as you enjoy for its own sake, because you can't rely on any of it seeing use or being enjoyable for the players. I like drawing up towns and mountain ranges and dungeons that the players may or may not ever visit it's not wasted, it's flavor for me to write, and practice thinking about how a scenario might flow or be directed, or to just practice working with the game system. Then one day the players say let's do a dungeon bash! Boom you trot out a 5 level dungeon you have been working on the side to sketch out for some months, and play it for weeks. It's nice when that stuff gets used, but if it's not fun for a person to create, or the time it takes stresses them out, then it's better off not being made, or made to that degree. Not everyone enjoys improv, either, of course. Fortunately, there's a lot of middleground, where people are still enjoying their prep, and also aren't completely out at sea. Find your place in the middleground. That's how I do it. Paul and Mr. Jones obviously do not. I'm not sure why you felt the need to call me out. Your method stands on its own, or it doesn't, regardless of who else does what.

Hold on, please. Back up to the foundation: The OP is asking us how to tell his villain reveals story/ Scenario.. Or is that no longer the case? If so what are we talking about? "What if they're ambushed, but not beaten?" You're just arguing to argue. You know what I mean. Don't be what's the word you would deign to use? Ah, Obstreperous. "Not everyone actually enjoys all that." Again, You're arguing to argue. The OP is playing 4th edition. "Prep only as much as you enjoy for its own sake." Yes, I said that. And it can be enjoyable. If not, don't do it. Make your point. "It's nice when that stuff gets used, but if it's not fun for a person to create, or the time it takes stresses them out, then it's better off not being made, or made to that degree." yes, you are indulging in rehashing what you said early and restating the obvious. Because the corollary is: "If it's fun to work on it, work on it." "I'm not sure why you felt the need to call me out." Call you out? You mean state your name? Begin Statement//: I like drawing up towns and mountain ranges [text block] and play it for weeks. //End Statement That is Preparation in advance. Both You and Headhunter Jones are advising not to do it. I am saying, that I like it, you and he advise against it. I think to someone asking how to do run a scenario, create a scenario have a range of options in the toolbox. If the guy doesn't want to do prep is intimidated by All of that cool work the big name scenario writers and designers do, so be it. But to get to those completed works takes steps that are founded in learning how they did it. And do no prep, does not teach the man how to write a scenario, which was his question. I realize your argument is founded on minimalist GMing prep work. But that is not the only valid method of Gming. Valid for you, valid for some, not all. Please take care to make that clear, and don't say that it's valid for all cases.

Felix said: That is Preparation in advance. Both You and Headhunter Jones are advising not to do it. I am saying, that I like it, you and he advise against it. I would like the record to show that at no point in this thread did I advise the OP not to do "preparation in advance." I told him not to do what modules do because it is excessive. And then I gave him a link showing some prep techniques. There's a lot of good stuff in there. Paul can speak for himself, but his position reads to me that prep if you like prepping, but do it for your own sake. Edit: And please - "Mr. Jones" is my father. Call me Headhunter.

wow all of your inputs have been great and it really is helping me get my feet rewet Just the fact that other GMs have jumped in to help shows a lot of character.Well maybe I can tell you guys my Ideas for a game and you guys can help me hash out some of it especially plots, goals sits etc

Go for it. While you're at it, why not invite your players to the thread so they can participate and share their ideas as well?

well the only prob I have is when I make an adventure using one of my Ideas it may ruin the game because they already know whats going on.know what things are gonna happen etc I love the Idea but should I really show the players the cards I'm holding kinda ruins the suprise factor

Don: You can get input from your players without really "tipping your hand", so to speak. Early in my 1st edition AD&D campaign here on Roll20, I used the Survey Monkey website to build a survey and sent the link to the players. It was very useful for getting a lot of insight on what they were interested in doing during this game. I asked questions such as asking them to rank order from most to least what locales did they enjoy exploring (urban, rural, wilderness, underground, etc) and also the same types of questions about sorts of advetures would they enjoy the most (all the way from pure hack-and-slash to more subtle things like court intrigue, that sort of thing). Anyway, it was very informative and helped me a lot in deciding which directions to take the game. You only get to ask 10 questions per survey if you create a free Survey Monkey account. But you can get *a lot* of information from your players with just 10 questions, if you build them right. Another bonus, their responses are annonymous, so the players can be completely honest about what they want from the game and neither you nor the other players will know who said what unless they tell you themselves.

Or you can just have a conversation. Here is a tool that might help you get on the same page . It's not meant to be a survey. It's meant to provoke conversation and collaboration on ideas. Studies have shown that spoilers actually enhance enjoyment, so I don't worry about planned surprises. Even if they know about them, they'll tend to enjoy the reveals anyway. Other surprises can arise during play as a result of playing that will be more surprising to everyone anyway. And you can't plan for those. It's generally good advice, especially in D&D, to not hinge your efforts on knowing or not knowing something in particular. So if you're going to prep a dungeon, you can tell the players there's a dungeon, even what's in it, and it'll still be fun because knowing what's there doesn't remove any of the challenge. They still have to explore it and deal with the threats therein. Just don't design your threats in such a way that knowing something before the game starts eliminates the threats.

To expand upon my original suggestion: I found that the survey worked well because the players had an entire week between game sessions to go in and complete it. That way, I didn't have to spend actual game time gathering the information I was seeking. The survey allowed them to go in at their own convenience, spend as much time as they wished thinking over the questions with no pressure, and then answer with as much detail as they liked. Plus, it created a permanent record of everyone's responses. Survey Monkey allows you to export the responses into graphs and charts if you like, so you can visually represent how people responded to the questions. This is what I did, I exported all the responses onto graphs in a .pdf document and then sent it out to all the players so they could look over it themselves. They really appreciated that and we enjoyed reviewing the responses together during the next game session. But, no doubt, the OP can decide for himself which option he thinks will work best for his group and go with that.

Don D. said: well the only prob I have is when I make an adventure using one of my Ideas it may ruin the game because they already know whats going on.know what things are gonna happen etc I love the Idea but should I really show the players the cards I'm holding kinda ruins the suprise factor Effective surprise is an advanced aspect of adventure design, and even normal writing, and even for the professionals it's often seen coming a mile away, and often falls flat even when it isn't. Forget about surprise for now. Put everything out in the open and make it fun and challenging without surprise. My prediction is that, given the random nature of the game, you will all be surprised by the gameplay itself.

My advice is don't be discouraged by all the armchair DM's around here telling you what to forget about, what not to do, what to drop from your ideas, and how they say you're doing it wrong. You are the DM and you know your friends. Take the pushy posts in this thread with a grain of salt.

The original poster asked for input, and got it. But then folks felt the need to critique each other's suggestions and here we are with another combative line of conversation that we don't care to have in our community. Additionally the use of secondary accounts to back up conversation and continue it is unacceptable. Multiple accounts have been placed on long term bans for the display here-- particularly the participants who have had previous warnings. Expect some major changes to the message boards in the weeks to come because of threads like this.