STILL Not Dead (Terrors & Tactics Updade)

I did have a reasonably happy Thanksgiving, I hope yours was good too.

The sidekick is now the Mastermind and the talents are in the book now. I ended up only putting "Hold the Line" in the fighter section and expanded it to "allies that are aware of you." Since its not actually doing any healing, just moving damage around (and only to a specific PC at that) I don't think it would be too unbalanced (I also re-worded it so that your resistances, immunities and vulnerabilities do not apply to the damage taken... if you want a creature vulnerable to cold to hold the line you're going to have to spend a lot more of your Edge to do it, even if you resist cold).

I definitely think the talents are the best approach since they still allow a baseline competency even if your minions aren't around. The reason the summoner works as a class is they CAN'T be separated from their minions... they're literally the result of a spell you cast to bring them into being wherever you happen to be.

Actual mooks can't just appear out of thin air (without some sort of ability of their own... and if they can do that why are they mooks in the first place?)... it'd be kinda like building a class around needing a spellbook and then having the GM steal the spellbook in the first session; leaving the PC basically a commoner while everyone else still has their abilities. I've seen that jerk move pulled by GMs one too many times to build a character class around something so relatively easy to remove.

* * * *

So, since I pretty much solved the "warrior pet class" issue before Thanksgiving day even arrived I instead went looking for other problems to fix.

One thing that stuck with me was your comment...

"As a side note, I used to pan the "system as rules of the universe" that 3e and similar systems espoused, but I've noticed that your system does "rules as laws of physics" better than anything 3e ever did - fewer glitches and questionable elements."

... and I did notice one really big hole in the "rules as laws of physics." Specifically... while its no problem for PCs, you have to be at least a level 4 grunt to be able to chop wood. Grunts do 2+level damage with their attacks. Wood has hardness 5 so you need to do at least 6 damage with an attack to even scratch a wooden object.

A level 2 grunt, even with a strong damage attack, could hack at a one inch thick wood door with an axe all day long and never so much as dent it.

That's RIDICULOUS.

So the more I thought about it, the more I'm starting to think that using Edge for objects is a mistake (and since I'm working on terrain NOW is the time to fix it).

Edge is almost entirely non-physical; its why a lot of the physics work better. It's stamina and skill and luck. By the same token, the level and skill bonuses to weapon damage aren't because you are hitting harder, they're because you're better at forcing errors that your opponents have to burn Edge to avoid becoming lethal.

That wouldn't have any effect on a door (other than perhaps knowing where better to strike it).

So, my thinking is that, for damaging objects, I need to drop Edge (and hardness as currently written) and go with something closer to the "Break DC" concept from 3e/4E.

Where I'd do that differently is instead of always needing a check, there'd be a threshold in terms of STR (or your spellcasting attribute if using magic) needed to damage objects. Having the right tools (physical or magical) would improve your attribute and if you don't have enough... I've already got "Extra Effort" for adding extra STR to an effort to lift something so that would be pretty easy to expand (and add an equivalent action for spellcasting).

Option B would be to base thresholds not on STR, but Base Load. This gives larger creatures an edge (even a weak elephant can pull a door open better than a strong human) and skips needing another stat for the opponents. Tools would further modify this allowing either a flat buff (+X lb.) or multiplier depending on the tool.

The big hangup is how magic applies. Its extra damage from levels COULD be interpreted as just more raw power instead of better skill forcing errors and how a fireball interacts with a wood door vs. a stone wall could be very messy. Spells argue for using the attributes over Base Load, but its still not as clean as if this were a non-magic setting where brute force is the only method of bringing down structures.

I'm not 100% sure of the best course yet, but since I'm doing terrain right now, this seems like the ideal time to give it a serious look (and retrofit it into the structures and siege engines in the equipment section... and to talents, boons and items that do extra to objects).

No playtest this weekend due to the holidays, so this is probably what I'll be baking my noodle on over the weekend.

Good to hear. Mine was nice and quiet. No crazy extended family.

***
Having that base competency is a good idea, for the reasons you gave. Just because you're a reasonable GM doesn't mean that other people will be.

***
The "Edge for objects" mechanic sounds like a holdover from the "HP as physical resource" days.

I would use the attribute as the base threshold, factor in something for Dex (or not, if you feel like it's not necessary), then find a way to have Base Load alter that for larger and smaller characters.

Afternoon object damage update;

I’m beginning to think I’ve been overthinking damage to objects. More accurately, I think I’ve been leaning too heavily on how the d20 system (including 4E) has handled damage to objects.

The d20 System has always used the idea that objects are easy to hit, but then give them hardness to make them difficult to damage. Then they’ve had the parallel mechanic of Strength checks to break through objects like doors and even walls.

But let’s take a step back.

First, a successful attack roll is only a “hit” in the sense that it’s an opportunity to do damage. In the d20 System, wearing Full Plate armor doesn’t make you dodge things better... it makes it harder to land a telling blow. A attack physically hits, but glances harmlessly off the armor.

Second, at the end of the day, what IS a default melee basic attack roll in 4E?

It’s a STRENGTH check. Minus the proficiency and magic bonuses it’s the exact same check you’d use to break down a stuck door in 4E.

So let’s take those two things and put them together... if a “hit” is not whether or not a given strike connects, but whether it can do telling damage, then an object’s defenses don’t have to be about whether or not you connect with them, but whether or not you can deliver telling damage to it.

A ten-foot section of stone wall doesn’t have to be AC 4 because it’s immobile (-5 to AC) and large (-1 to AC). It could be AC 22 because it requires great effort to even damage.

And what determines if you can damage it? A Strength check in the form of an attack roll. A human with a pick and either proficiency or a good strength score will reduce the wall’s hit points with one out of every twenty attacks. A typical human without a tool or great strength can pound on it all day and not deal damage (new rule: objects are not automatically hit by a natural 20).

How much does a successful check damage them? Depends on the tool they’re using (weapon damage die) and the Strength behind it (and in my system, by their level).

* * * *

I’m metaphorically slapping myself at how simple this fix is (okay, I’m doing it once literally just for emphasis). 3e overthought things and 4E ran with it instead of actually questioning the basic assumptions.

What I need to do is... drop hardness entirely and adjust object’s armor, fortitude and dodge to reflect the difficulty of damaging them and then adjust Edge scores accordingly. This means I’ll need to look at a few talents/boons/species traits that involve hardness and damaging objects (I’m thinking that replacing the auto-crit on objects with +5 to attack rolls vs. objects would better reflect the mechanics of more reliably damaging objects)... but that’s nowhere near the level of changes I was worried about having to make.

It also actually makes the rules SIMPLER instead of more complex (and just saying that prompted a literal forehead slap).

Even at this late date I need to always remember my first principles... question EVERYTHING. In this case, I firmly believe that 3e over-engineered their object rules (just like they did everything else) and that a simpler approach might actually be (or at least feel) more realistic.

I’m off to play with some numbers, I’ll let you know what I figure out.

It would be interesting to do a pass-through and see what other areas of overengineering might still exist, though you've pretty much worked over the d20 system into your own beast at this point.

I have... and in many cases I HAVE streamlined things and the official name for the system is going to be the Siege Engine.

- Ability Scores: use the modifiers as the scores directly.
- Skills... 36 in 3.5e (counting craft, profession and knowledge as 1 each), 17 in 4E and 5e... 12 in R&R.
- Defenses... kept 4Es, particularly Armor/AC because compare roll to TN is simpler than roll to hit and then figure in damage reduction.
- Edge... removed the bloat; guardian's max is 114, other PC's is 95. Then re-wrote various systems to make it entirely non-physical.
- Resources... merged 4E's healing surges, action points, daily powers and death saves into heroic surges.
- Damage... monsters do static damage; PC damage is now always one die plus modifiers.
- Resistance... went from numeric to straight forward half damage.
- Vulnerability... went from numeric to automatic critical hit.
- Modifiers... removed a ton of bloat from attack and defense numbers. Not quite as much from skills.
- Classes... split into combat and non-combat portions for easy mix and match. Also siloed combat and non-combat resources to keep combat stuff from always being the best option.
- Duration... switched (save ends) tracking by subject (who has every reason to want to ignore harmful conditions) to (sustain hit) by attacker (who has every reason to want to ensure they're tracked).

It really ISN'T the d20 system anymore other than using a d20 for task resolution (but then, Palladium Books also uses a d20), but the amazing thing is that in spite of that, it still plays mostly like 4E at the table... tactical set piece battles with abilities that encourage movement around the battlefield and a mix of short and long term resource management.

Okay, here’s the start of some numbers and theory.

First, I’m going to repurpose the term “hardness” to replace separate Armor, Dodge and Fortitude defenses. It’s basically the all-purpose defense for objects accounting for it not dodging or having a metabolism and many things not really being armored either.

I’m setting the maximum hardness at 25, just above the maximum possible Armor defense in the game of 24 (14 heavy armor + 7 Reflex + 2 shield + 1 talent... also 12 base opponent + 2 brittle + 2 blocker + 8 highest attribute in the opponent section). This is also the highest TN an ordinary person with skill in a tool-like weapon could still hit with 20 on the die (min. +5 modifier if skilled with a weapon).

Two important rules to note... first, when not pressured you can always take 10 on the attack checks so anything with a hardness of 9 or less is effectively “auto-hit” for anyone outside of combat and anything with a hardness 15 or less is effectively auto-hit for anyone skilled with a tool-like weapon outside of combat (i.e. min. modifier is +5 if skilled with a weapon). In addition, you can “take 20” on them so you can figure out times for mundane progress (ex. workers mining out a tunnel where they can’t take 10).

Second, the hardness defense will have a property that natural 20s are not automatic hits on it and weapons in the improvised category are -4 to hit. No amount of punching by a normal fist can damage hard metal or stone (you need STR 5 or proficiency with unarmed and improvised weapons to be able to damage hard metal and the iron body boon’s ability to count your unarmed attacks as a different category means they can damage anything with their bare hands).

The current scale I’m going with is...

7 = loose dirt/sand (even a weakling with their hands could eventually dig through it).
9 = packed earth/clay and ice
11 = soft wood (ex. pine)
13 = thin glass and pottery (even though it’s hard as stone, it’s this low due to its thinness 1+” thick glass would be soft stone that happens to be transparent)
15 = hard wood (ex. oak)
17 = soft metal (ex. copper/gold/silver)
19 = soft stone (ex. limestone/marble)
21 = hard metal (ex. steel)
23 = hard stone (ex. granite)
25 = crystal (ex. ruby, sapphire, diamond)

In addition to hardness, objects have “Structure” (to distinguish it from non-physical Edge... and avoid confusion since abilities that restore Edge for creatures aren’t intended to restore objects, but someone might try... calling it Structure points heads that off and also lets me rework the mending ritual and cantrip).

It’s probably utterly ridiculous that I took the time to research this, but the world record for a man chopping through a 12” pine log with a hatchet is 13 seconds (just a fraction above two rounds).

A 15th level PC can do just over 30 damage per attack with a hatchet, so without expending resources they could match the world record if soft wood had a Structure of 5/inch (a Striker or a couple of heroic surges would accomplish the world record at level 6... a 15th level slayer could do it in single round).

So that became my starting point for Structure. Here’s the numbers I’m looking at currently.

Loose dirt = 10/in.
Packed earth = 15/in.
Soft wood = 5/in.
Thin glass = 5
Hard wood = 10/in.
Soft metal = 20/in.
Soft stone = 30/in.
Hard metal = 40/in.
Hard stone = 30/in. (yes, lower than hard metal... steel is softer, but stronger than granite).
Crystal = 20/in. (very hard to damage, but tends to shatter once the needed force is exceeded).

In terms of vehicles, the poor quality ones will probably use soft wood for their hardness and structure, good ones will use hard wood, fine quality will be hardness 18 (between soft metal and soft stone... basically bronze) with 25 Structure/in. and legendary would use hard metal (a legendary ship with the self-propulsion magic and siege projectors would essentially be akin to a modern naval vessel).

Update on the update... right now the biggest issue with removing the damage reduction version of hardness is what to replace the species traits for earth and metal eldritch, husk malfeans and whether the assorted creatures that have a hardness traits need an adjustment to match.

The primary issue is that they need a “resistance” trait to match their harder skin, but I can’t just give them a flat armor bonus without it being the objectively best option for many classes (i.e. defender with STR 5, heavy armor, large shield and shield talent could already start w. Armor 21).

At the same time I’ve already got more than enough species using “natural armor equal to best armor you’re skilled in” so I really don’t want to go to that well unless I have to; particularly since my iconic stone giant is actually wearing armor and the metal eldritch can create armor out of thin air.

Right now I’m leaning towards a +1 talent bonus to defenses so it basically helps initially and saves a talent choice, but doesn’t move the upper limit on defenses. It also keeps with my unofficial species design philosophy of species traits being about “one boon, one talent and a little extra.”

That said I am absolutely open to ideas on this front.

Maybe you could create a separate damage reduction version of hardness, just use the old mechanic and call it something else.

If that doesn't work, then I'd probably go with the +1 talent bonuses to defenses that you suggested.

IRL there is damage less than 1 hit point... chipping away at a piece of wood and doing 1hp in 2 rounds is fine if you can do it indefinitely or if its a non-moving non-evading object and you get more attacks

there is a reason game rules as physics doesnt work its complexity required... its a rabbit hole

If I were aiming for physics, I'd not have creatures always catch themselves before falling if they have Edge remaining.

What I'm aiming for is verisimilitude; does it FEEL like a world where things fit together properly.

Indeed, Edge isn't even physical... its the effort expended to avoid lethal injury. I don't even track minor bumps, bruises and cuts because those things never impact heroes. Any attack is potentially lethal if you have no Edge left to avoid it.

In the case of objects, the issue is that Hardness is a bad mechanic when your primary scalar is Edge/damage and not attack rolls/defenses (with relatively static damage that increasing by making more attacks instead of the attacks doing more damage) because when a commoner can only do 2 damage with an ax and a tree has a hardness of 5 then they are utterly incapable of cutting down even the smallest tree even if they chopped at it for a million years.

That's an objectively BAD mechanic for the system I've built. A one inch thick wooden door should not render your stronghold impervious to warriors who can lug 120 lb. of gear without penalty. Likewise, Two points of hardness and you are IMMUNE to commoners. A million of them are not a threat to you.

In fact, as I've continued to ponder it, I think I've gotta go with the +1 talent bonus to defenses as the replacement for the species that had hardness specifically because ANY hardness value will essentially make them immune to whole swaths of opponents before too long... they'd be immune to commoners at level 2 and immune to normal wolves and attack dogs at level 4).

Removing hardness so that objects have a defense target number and structure points isn't about trying to be a physics engine. Frankly, its arguably less realistic, just as armor making you harder to hit instead of reducing the damage of hits is less realistic. But Armor as AC and objects with higher defenses but no damage reduction are a lot easier to play a game with and have a side of effect of also removing some really verisimilitude-breaking results from my system in the process.

It allows common sense things to occur without the GM needing to make some special ruling as because the developer sold them crap rules.

That's 5e's niche (make rulings because we aren't giving you rules). Mine is rules that a GM can rely on to actually work out of the box so they don't NEED to make rulings all that often.

Okay, new version of the rules is going up.

The primary changes are;

HARDNESS
All the hardness changes have been implemented. This included adding the effects of item quality to hardness and structure, which also ended up adding item quality to structures (so you could have a poorly maintained soft stone castle pretty easily and a legendary hard metal castle for a LOT of coin).

Permanent magic items also have improved hardness and structure (+1 hardness and double structure for minor items; +2 hardness and triple structure for major items; artifacts are invulnerable except to specific methods of destruction; like active volcanoes where they were forged).

Hardness includes the following special rules;

Objects are immune to psychic and toxic damage and the flat-footed condition. A natural 20 on attack checks vs. hardness is not an automatic hit (the result with bonuses must still match the hardness TN or it deals no damage).

Objects may also have resistance, immunity or vulnerability to other damage types based on the material (ex. paper is vulnerable to heat damage from fire). While not immune to conditions (except flat-footed), most have little effect on objects (ex. objects take no actions so dazing an object is meaningless).

Effects that normally deal damage without a check require an Engineering or Insight (any), Fitness (physical force) or Arcana (magical force) check with a TN of the object’s hardness to deal that damage to an object.

MOVEMENT TWEAKS
Some issues came up that resulted in some tweaks.

First, how using multiple movement modes during the same turn are calculated got changed. Instead of 'each pace counts as one of each' so you could only use slower movement at the start of your movement... it's now...

Each pace you move using one type of movement counts as one pace of movement using your best speed. You can’t move further than your best speed allows in a turn, nor use more paces of another type of movement than you have in a turn.

Example: You have a ground speed of 6 paces, a climb speed of 4 paces and a jump of 4 paces. You could move up to 6 paces in a turn, but only 4 of those paces could be moved by climbing. You could use either ground or jumping for the remaining two paces.

This makes it easier to mix and match movement in a turn... which, along with some jump weirdness, was how these changes came about. A player wanted to parkour by jumping then climbing in the same turn, but the old version just interacted with that weirdly.

The second movement change was to jump. Before it had weirdness of other movement types not counting against it, but it counting against other movement types (because it would be impossible to make a running jump otherwise), but with the movement change above that's no longer needed.

The other change to it was more a clarification and specification...

Actions that improve your jump speed increase how far you can reach with a single jump. Actions that only grant extra paces of movement (ex. Run or Sprint) do not.

Basically this means if your jump speed is 4 you can jump 20' without a check. If a power grants you +2 jump speed you can now jump 30' without a check.

Before the clarification using run granted extra paces of movement equal to your speeds and sprint doubled that again... which would allow someone to jump 80' in a single bound just by having a STR 4 (the world record for a running long jump incidentally is about 30').

So now running and sprinting will allow that STR 4 PC to make multiple 20' jumps during a single turn without needed a check, but not let them jump 80' by default.

Don't worry about this not allowing legendary results though. A hustle action and a TN 15 Extra Effort check can get that PC to the world record long jump all by itself. Throw in the movement affecting physical adept boons and that same PC at level 11 could jump 70' across or bring their feet to 15' off the ground without even needing to make a check or using any magical power.

TRIED AND FAILED
One other major suggestion that I liked in theory was that for the species I should move the game traits to the front of the entry because some had almost eight pages of text and pictures before the stats themselves.

That's great in theory, but many of the species had trait blocks more than a page long. With them towards the end I was able to position them via artwork so that all the options were on facing pages, but at the front, combined with the desire for art on the first spread of each species (because a picture is worth a thousand words in terms of capturing a species' essence) led to it just looking AWFUL and having to flip pages just to see all the game stats at once.

So I think what I'm going to do is put a "X traits" bookmark into the PDF and call it a day. Not all ideas are winners.

Not gonna lie, I thought that was how movement always worked. Still, it works well now.

The hardness rules look clear to me - your sword example really helped put it together.

As to the species traits, I would argue that you could put the traits in the table of contents underneath the species' entries, so that people who are just looking for stats can go right to them, while people who need context can read through the entry before getting to the stats, which would otherwise be meaningless in terms of the species' place in the world.

Nope... I had tried to make movement simpler by just having it all use the same count, but apparently that also made it less intuitive (since you presumed it worked like how it works now). Sometimes simpler isn’t as easy to understand.

In terms of Structure, trying to decide on how to calculate it was the trickiest part. Should I use mass? Overall size?

Ultimately it just made sense to essentially use “the weakest link” approach because that’s how someone earnestly trying to destroy something would go about it.

Another key point is that that’s it’s rather inherently designed to discourage deliberate sundering of enemy weapons and armor. Most weapons and armor are going to have a higher defense and comparable structure points to the creatures wielding/wearing them so it’s just not a great approach.

Another thing worth mentioning related to equipment is that I adjusted the value of gold to about 16 times that of silver. Not only is that more historically accurate, it also means a one ounce gold coin (at the US 16 ounces to the pound instead of the Troy Ounce) would be about the size of a quarter and also be worth 100 silver cents/1 pound. The game now has a default gold piece for those who want it.

I did add the trait pages to the PDF bookmarks and once I split the document back in two (for writing/playtest it’s more convenient to have it all in one file) there will be enough room to put into the table of contents.

Another concept I’m thinking about too is that I might expand on “print-friendly PDF” plans. I don’t know if this something I’ve brought up here before, but one of my plans for distribution was to include a free printer-friendly version of the PDF that formatted so it left out the non-rule artwork, replaced the rule artwork (ex. the cover and burst size pieces) with line art, and formatted it so two book pages would be displayed on a single letter-sized sheet (two columns/landscape orientation).

Anyway, it’d be barely any additional work to just further strip that down by removing the fluff-text so that you’d have a bare bones version of the raw mechanics needed to build a character and make that part of the pdf/print on demand package.

Which, to be honest, is kinda why I do already when using my rules for home games. I like to make my own character sheets (and have long used a 4E/R&R monster-style layout) and to do that I cut and paste the relevant sections for that character (i.e. the species traits, the class traits, talent descriptions, background skill list and relevant boons and special equipment rules) into a blank document so I can make a sheet that references everything I (or whoever I’m making up the sheet for) will need at the table.

I'd be worried that you might lose money on making the rules available, but it's worked for the various SRDs out there, so I could just be paranoid and old-fashioned. If nothing else, you can sell it as a "pay what you want" mechanism.

As to the condensed, monster manual-format character sheets, I'd put both the base character sheet and the condensed, monster-style layout on the website for download, along with directions to convert one into the other. The monster-style sheet might be popular, given how much information it can condense into such a small block.

Well, the monster format one really only works if you're typing a character into a word processor instead of doing it by hand.

The main reason for doing it is clarity of reading and a big part of that is that I can omit lines like Resist or Vulnerability or any skills that are untrained and have no modifiers. If I did up a sheet for filling in just like the already provided sheet it'd be just as cluttered and there'd be no point other than layout preference.

As to providing the rules... from everything I've learned about the industry, if your product is worth anything, it will be scanned and available on pirate sites for anyone who wants it pretty quickly. The key to making anything off the system is make the material as valuable as possible to the people who are willing to pay for it.

That's why I think a couple different "printable" PDF versions for those who purchase the PDFs is the way to go because you're providing value to them.

Like I said, I am old-fashioned - I hadn't even accounted for piracy. Given that particular reality, I think that worrying about "losing money on giving the rules away" is rather short-sighted and ignorant - it's like worrying about gravity: things are going to fall regardless of whether you or I worry.

Not that you're worried, it looks like. Your strategy of making things worth it to the people willing to pay looks like the best approach. You've got people out there that, if they love a product, they'll pay whatever you ask and consider it a bargain.

Yeah, my main concern with the rules and IP in general is my version of the OGL to link use of certain IP elements to basically a morality clause. Stick to family friendly content you get to use official trademark elements (i.e. "Ruins & Realms System Compatible" using the actual game system logo).

If you want to do offensive/non-family friendly content using my rule-set I really can't stop you, but I can insist you use a different set of trademark elements (i.e. "Usable with the R&R System - warning - contains [insert non-family friendly content here]" and without the game system logo).

There's a part of me that actually wonders if some sort of Patreon model wouldn't actually work better than trying to sell specific books. Pay X a month and get access to new content on a regular basis (new monsters, adventure sites, etc.).

Perhaps you can use the books as anthologies of the Patreon material, like the Dragon Magazine Annual book, and have the Patreon access be early access - with the bugs worked out, of course. Alternatively, you can have a series of Patreon releases have a certain theme, like Adventures in the Frozen North, and have the annual book be a themed collection rather than just "Ruins and Realms Annual I."

Possibly. Honestly, I’m probably getting ahead of myself given that I’m still trying to get my core rule books finished up.

After that, the content I’m most going to need is an actual good sized adventure to put the system’s best foot forward (so the opposite of Keep on the Shadowfell basically). I’m not 100% on what that adventure should be, but it is something I want to have ready in time for the launch so I’ve got a solid module to demo it with.

Going in that direction, the thing I’m probably looking forward to least is the convention circuit (I did it for a bit when I still had a partner with my laser engraving business because I live basically two and a half hours from Origins and GenCon). Still, probably one of the better promotional opportunities available; particularly if I can present a good demo game for it.

My first thought was something related to the Stormhold Necropolis, but that sounds like a higher-tier adventure. The Bloodspear orcs are too far off from Blackspire, which probably needs to be where the main action is. El-Phara could be enemies, to highlight their previous relationship with Blackspire and explain just what elves are in the setting.

I have a general, rough idea of what Keep on the Shadowfell did wrong (too many encounters, sumo-HP monsters, poorly-designed encounters, few roleplaying hooks), but what's your take, so that we can get on the same page?

You hit the main points on KotSF’s flaws. The gist of it boils down to the adventure being designed for a game of 3.5e. Lots of not especially challenging encounters designed purely for attrition of party resources and lots of open featureless areas that didn’t promote using the terrain.

It also suffered from many of the encounters being not especially connected. Why is there a Kruthik nest in the Keep? Because they needed another encounter to pad it out. Why is there an ambush on the road by a group only tangentially connected to the main adventure? Tradition (road ambushes to open modules is a bad cliche) and more padding.

One area where I don’t fault the adventure as much is the lack of RP hooks. Instead I somewhat fault the system as a whole for promoting the need for them. Instead I think it would have been better if they’d pushed the notion that every PC needs a reason to BE an adventurer.

To be specific, I can generally tell whether any campaign I run or play in is going to be a success or failure by a simple metric... the greater the proportion of PCs are self-motivated adventurers, the better the campaign. This holds true regardless of genre. My prime example of awful campaign dynamics is actually from Mage where the PCs were a DJ, a yoga instructor, a medical student and a librarian. Only the one running the librarian actually had a proper PC because he gave them a personal goal of trying to discover all the magical secrets of the setting. The DJ just wanted to boost his brand and use his magic to make people feel good. The Yoga instructor’s goal was to find peace and serenity. The medical student wanted to use their magic to cure people they were treating.

Basically, everyone but the Librarian should have been an NPC, not a PC, because none of their goals required them to travel outside the mundane world and, even when dragged into an adventure (usually by the librarian), their primary interest was in getting back to their mundane lives (which would be great for a one-off story, but you can’t keep going to the well of dragging them into the world of adventure time after time after time).

Which is why my finishing touches section includes picking a motivation (and is probably something I should further expand on). If your PC’s primary goal isn’t to push some boundary into a world of adventure... they probably shouldn’t be a PC in the first place. Even “I wanna strike it rich” is enough of an excuse.

If a PC doesn’t have a self-motivation to be an adventurer, no amount of hooks are really going to help. The DMG put a whole focus on what motivates and interests players... then spent pages in their modules ignoring that advice by focusing on hooks based on race and class that would only matter to the actors and storyteller playstyles IF they happened to line up with the backstories they created for themselves and would annoy them if they didn’t line up.

For example, trying to us the missing mentor hook for wizards, except the player wanted a wizard who taught himself from a spellbook he stole. So that hook is either meaningless if the player is a power gamer or slayer because they aren’t motivated by that in the first place or annoying if the DM forces it onto an actor or storyteller because they had a different story for their PC in mind.

So yeah, for myself I think I need to go into a little more depth on PCs needing a personal motivation for adventuring so all a module would need is an actual adventure and the PCs can fill in their own motivation (do they hope to strike it rich, make a name for themselves, prove their worth to a mentor or parent, feel an obligation to oppose villainy, etc.).

* * * *

Honestly, the Kobold Hall adventure in the back of the DMG was a MUCH better intro to the system. Each encounter had a unique gimmick with terrain/traps that could be exploited by either side and built to a climax with the dragon fight at the end.

My current thinking is that the ideal intro module for my system would be a series of “Kobold Hall” style mini-dungeons wrapped around a core premise of clearing out an area of threats to a new settlement. Part one would be clearing a ruin to use as a home base (and allow initial settlers, guards and basic services to be set up there), then some number of nearby ruins and monster lairs to be cleared out (with some that could be negotiated with) and finally a local-tier big bad and their forces who needs to be stopped to really make the area safe.

Long term for modules I write myself (my hope is that interested writers will take advantage of my license to do their own) would probably be Realm books that cover a specific realm (ex. Ironhold, Winterhaven) and a series of ruins and other local threats that require PCs to overcome.

The "Kobold Hall" style of mini-dungeons as part of a larger "civilize the wilderness" campaign and an over-arching big bad to possibly connect them is a good idea, especially if the mini-dungeons are customizable enough to be run in different orders.

***

Your point about PC motivations is one that seems like it's basic, but a lot of people overlook it. It takes a certain kind of character to become an adventurer, and homebodies need not apply.

Indeed... and I do think it’s something that’s not stressed enough in a lot of systems that the PCs in most systems aren’t mundane people and their goals can’t be mundane either. 4E tried to stress that PCs were exceptional, but when the first encounter in a module involves non-minion kobolds with two dozen hit points each and do as much damage as the PCs, it’s difficult to see the PCs as anything but mundane.

Despite how many try to spin it, particularly module writers who insist that every NPC has class levels, in AD&D a 1st level fighter isn’t some guy who was a farmhand yesterday... they’re not even a generic guard... their title is Veteran.

In terms of R&R, even if you were once a farmhand, at 1st level you’re something more now. You’re Jack who when confronted with a beanstalk to the heavens doesn’t run for help... you climb it to see what’s up there, steal some gold from the giant and ultimately kill the giant by chopping down the beanstalk. And then, instead of retiring to a quiet life using the wealth you acquired, you set forth on a new adventure and becomes Jack the Giant-Killer with a magic sword, belt, cap, cloak and boots.

I’m almost wondering if I shouldn’t add something like a list of motivations (like the short descriptions for species and backgrounds) of some fairly common motivations or even mechanize it somehow (say if you choose “wealth” you gain a bonus to appraising the value of items or something) just to get the point across that just because you picked the Aristocrat background and the stipend boon allowing your PC to live comfortably for the rest of their life without ever adventuring... you’re not a PC unless you’ve got the drive to be something more.

I'd keep the motivations as something non-mechanical unless you have a stroke of brilliance that immediately fills that mechanical need. The closest mechanic that I know of that might be applicable is Fate Core/Accelerated's aspects, or something like 5e's Inspiration mechanic (which I only have a tentative understanding of).