As an educator, I've recently been intrigued by the value of self-assessment. I am constantly analyzing my own approach to task completion, and have noticed a large part of my academic success comes from careful pre-assessment before turning in an assignment. This usually involves rereading the assignment, creating a checklist, and asking myself if I have completed each essential element. I might even add a few general elements not included in the syllabus.
When speaking with DM Jon, whose game I'm still loving, we talked about his frustration that his game isn't turning out as he envisioned it. Jon is trying to create a narrative game involving character development and engagement with the setting. However, the game has been a fairly brutal dungeon crawl so far. Personally, I don't mind such games, as long as it's a known quantity going on.
As Jon talked about his frustrations, my recent reflections on the value of self-assessment came to mind. I talked to Jon about it. I don't know if he's particularly excited about it, but I am. I think that I can really improve the quality of my adventure design and avoid pitfalls that have really damaged previous efforts by carefully pre-assessing my dungeons. Below is my initial effort at a self-assessment rubric for 4th Edition D&D Adventure Design (but it probably would work for most games). Note that encounters include combat encounters, skill challenges, and role-playing scenes.
Adventure Rubric
Each question is graded on a 4 point Likert scale (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree). Ideally, all answers should be in the affirmative.
1. Each encounter advances the narrative
I have been reading new Dungeon Magazine lately and have been impressed with how tight the Chaos Scar adventures have been. There's a premise, 3-4 encounters, and each encounter advances the story. There's a little introduction with the plot hook, and encounter 1 introduces the enemy, encounters 2-3 introduce complications and twists, encounter 4 wraps up the one session story and hints at the next chapter.
2. Each encounter includes interesting terrain/context
Interesting terrain is the difference between a good encounter and a great one. Don't save interesting terrain for the BBEG, include a little something to play with in each room. Terrain powers in DMG2 are great for codifying what happens when players poke things. If you're playing in person and you're a bit crafty, emulate Gabe of Penny Arcade--I would love to do something like this for my next in person campaign. As Gabe advises elsewhere, make the action economy work with your terrain. Either tell the PCs how it works, or require only a free/minor action for relatively easy knowledge rolls. You might even consider requiring only a minor or move action for one-time only terrain actions to encourage people to use them. No point in putting there if people won't use it.
3. Each encounter includes a consequence for failure
I think too often the consequences are too extreme. In combat, it's usually TPK. In a role-playing encounter, it's usually wasted time. Ideally, it's most interesting if it's somewhere in between. In fact, TPKs probably happen too often anyway. I find they most often happen, as one of my players once said, to nameless thugs in basements (or in Jon's game last night, to nameless BUGS in basements). Often if you consider opponents' motives, they don't have a reason for total slaughter. PCs are heroes, and as such, are founts of information or make for valuable ransom. Against mindless opponents, usually the motivation of the enemy is food. I was eating rotisserie chicken the other day, and watching Animal Planet, and some things occurred to me. First, a pack of wolves doesn't TPK the gazelles, they kill just one. Running away from hungry animals should be easy once the first PC is down. Second, most animals don't WANT more than one body to eat. I'm a size medium human, and a size tiny chicken is nearly all my food for a day. If I killed five chickens, they'd probably go bad before I could eat them, if I was a mindless bug living in the dirt.
4. I have carefully considered other alternatives before including any “grindy” elements (Soldiers, weaken, insubstantial, stun, high level monsters)
It's all been said before.
5. This adventure is likely to lead to a satisfying session with a beginning, middle, and end (3-4 encounters)
See commentary on question 1.
6. I have performed reality checks on each element, insuring that skill checks are not too difficult, and no monster can deal enough damage to outright kill a player under normal circumstances.
It doesn't happen so much anymore in 4e, but it was always awkward to come to the table after rush preparation and realize that a monster was un-hittable, or it could one-shot the party monk. Sir Keegan is, btb, an appropriate encounter for a level 1 party, but is totally capable of taking someone a frail character from full health to truly dead (negative bloodied) in one round.
Well, that's a start. Anyone have other ideas for pre-session self assessment questions, or critique of what I've got?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like the point of advancing the narrative. At work I've been focusing hard on utilizing standard -- and intentional -- formats and really like the "start/middle/end" progression. It is what humans expect to see. There's a reason why there are standard formats in the arts like three act plays and symphonies with four movements. With 4E it seems like the four-scene format works wells, so I don't see why you can't have 3-5 sessions ("Acts") with 3-5 scenes each (probably 2/3 combat encounters, given the system you are using) per Act as a "standard" format.
ReplyDeleteJust slap it on that "rising/falling" action chart I seem to recall from middle school lit class and you're much better off than if you just randomly thrown encounters into a dungeon.
Of course, that is different from a random megadungeon, which tends to generate its own excitement in a different way... But for 4E I think it is more appropriate.