Adventure Building Challenge

[Legacy_Tarot Redhand]

               It's just a thought, but I think it might be a good idea that when an ABC module is completed to the builder's satisfaction and posted on the vault, that an announcement should be made in the modules section as well as in here.

TR
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Pstemarie]

               I'm really getting psyched about the leaders for April - so psyched that I've decided to make my own module inspired by Castle Amber. If Perilous Lodgings is a choice I'll submit it for April. If not I'll post it to the Vault as its own listing.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_henesua]

               Glad to see that you are interested, Pstemarie.

Do you mean the old module Castle Amber?




I really like that module. I built out a number of areas using Chandigar's Ravenloft Gothic Tilesets and placeables for it, and then realized I'd need to make a few new "terrains" - for the specially colored rooms especially. So after a few days of building I stopped.

More recently, I tried a similar project, but different house layout, using Six's Rural Interior for the house, and various elements from Project Q for placeables and residents. It looks more gritty, not like Castle Amber.

The thing that really inspired me about that module was the adventure in the massive Greenhouse, the residents, and then the adventures in Averoigne. I've got a PDF copy of Clark Ashton Smith's short stories set in Averoigne by the way. I could dig them up if you are a fan.




Here's a sreen shot of the cover of the book which inspired the "Perilous Lodgings" seed:



Those of us in the 'States might have read it as House of Hades when we were kids. I don't even know where my copies of these books are. I only have City of Thieves on my shelf these days hidden behind a bunch of other books.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par henesua, 12 mars 2013 - 09:08 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Pstemarie]

               Yup that's the one - Castle Amber. I absolutely loved that module. However, my take on it is going to be much more grittier than the original. Its inspired by it and not really going to follow the original at all. There may be some elements, but nothing that a casual player of the original would recognize.

I actually have read that very SJG book you mentioned. I'm a big fan of Steve Jackson Games and used to have a sizable collection of their publications.

EDIT - Wow - just found out the Steve Jackson that wrote that book (and founded Games Workshop) has nothing to do with Steve Jackson Games  Anyways, I got my copy of House of Hell at a game store in Montreal. I wonder if its still around - the store that is....
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Pstemarie, 12 mars 2013 - 11:49 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Rolo Kipp]

               <tossing a goblin-king...>

Just in case *everyone* doesn't  subscribe to Johnn Four, here's a great adventure design template  done in Denmark without words :-)

Seriously =)

<...ball into the mix>
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_henesua]

               I want to revisit our earlier discussion with regards to how we structure this challenge.

Here is what I propose:

• Month One: complete a module as a playable rough for a "Builder's Review".
• Month Two: review the modules and make comments, while polishing your work for public consumption in response to the reviews you receive.
• At the end of month two: the ABC will announce finished works, and where players can get them.

Meanwhile, during most months we will be holding a builder's challenge. This means that while some are continuing to work on their module and reviewing, other participants will have a chance to start fresh on a new module.

I intend also to break this pattern every fourth month. We won't for example be holding a typical builder's challenge in May. I'm looking to do something less intense while everyone has a chance to focus on reviewing and polishing April submissions.

In concrete terms

• February - we had a free form challenge in which builders worked on any kind of module that they wished.
• March - we reviewed February's modules and worked more on them, while some participated in a new building challenge.
• April - Announce polished works begun in February. Review March submissions. Begin building the April modules.
• May - Announce polished works begun in March. Review April submissions. Something completely different.
• June - Announce polished works begun in April. Begin building the June modules.
• etc....

Thoughts?
               
               

               

                     Modifié par henesua, 28 mars 2013 - 09:07 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_rogueknight333]

               

henesua wrote...

I want to revisit our earlier discussion with regards to how we structure this challenge...

...Thoughts?

I think what you are proposing is not a bad plan, and certainly offers some improvements over our current arrangements. One possible downside to this system would be that it still largely prevents any overlap between those who are playing and reviewing modules and those who are trying to build a module that same month (at least, I do not think I could find the time to do both in the same month, and I doubt I am alone in that). Under this proposal participants in the ABC would basically be working in two different shifts that did not have much to do with each other. Not impossible, but somehow that strikes me as less than ideal. It might also mean a bit of extra work for the one who has to organize both shifts. I suppose that is you, so if you are okay with that, it is a moot point. Certainly your efforts so far to get this off the ground, while also working at various other things, have been impressive enough (and are much appreciated).

One point that could use some clarification: exactly how and where would the beta versions to be reviewed in the 2nd month be submitted? As a preliminary vault page? Some relatively more private venue like a project page associated with the ABC group? Somewhere else?
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_henesua]

               

rogueknight333 wrote...

One point that could use some clarification: exactly how and where would the beta versions to be reviewed in the 2nd month be submitted? As a preliminary vault page? Some relatively more private venue like a project page associated with the ABC group? Somewhere else?

Good question.

Here are two possibilities based on what we have done so far:

We could proceed as we have, and put these on the vault page for the challenge. The upload would be identified as roughs for builder review. When the challenge is wrapped up we could encouraged builders to upload their finished works, and let us know if they are ready to have their works advertized as complete. Any that do so would receive links to their work from the ABC page.

OR 

We could require builders to make their own vault pages, and to manage their own files. It would be fully incumbent upon builders to announce their work to other builders when it is ready, and then later send their work to the ABC organizer for posting on the ABC vault page as ready for player review.


Both sides have plusses and minuses, and are not fully thought out I agree. I'm just throwing some ideas out there for discussion.

I think it would be best to have a non-centralized approach. While I think I have been needed to get this thing going. Once we are moving along, it would probably be best to remove the need for a specific individual as the organizer. Something closer to the second option would work best in that case as itdistributes responsibilities to the participants.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_CaveGnome]

               Hello Henesua,

I like the "rough builder pack" all-in-one easy download, but the caveat is splitting the download numbers and votes (and they are precious) between the rough module and the complete release and the fact that this pack will be quickly outdated. Perhaps you could have something inbetween: The builder declares if he wants to be in the "rough pack" or not, if not you just post a link to his vault downloading page. Back to scripting...
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_henesua]

               

CaveGnome wrote...

Hello Henesua,

I like the "rough builder pack" all-in-one easy download, but the caveat is splitting the download numbers and votes (and they are precious) between the rough module and the complete release and the fact that this pack will be quickly outdated. Perhaps you could have something inbetween: The builder declares if he wants to be in the "rough pack" or not, if not you just post a link to his vault downloading page. Back to scripting...

Yes, we had a big drag out discussion about that awhile back. I wanted to first see if we would be able to do player reviews before abandonning the requirement that builders send in their module to the challenge.

BUT since it is clear that we are not able to produce enough polished works in one month to have a monthly player's review, I am officially dropping that requirement.

With regards to how we distribute the modules for builder review, I am open to suggestions. I like the idea of builders creating their own vault pages for their modules, and then linking to them from the ABC page.

We are abandonning structure here. And I wonder if that renders the whole challenge pointless. But if it can remain as a builder's forum as we work in parallel on small modules, perhaps it will be just fine, and thats all we need anyway. I particularly like the discussion and energy that came out of the February cycle, and am interested in moving in that direction.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par henesua, 29 mars 2013 - 06:11 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Tarot Redhand]

               The other point of view is that while I don't mind sending in an unfinished module to go onto an ABC webpage so that it can be ridi.. oops reviewed (()) by the other builders, I will not post something unfinished to a vault page of my own. I would suggest that the unfinished ones be posted to a project page under the auspices of the ABC group on here. When finished then links on a dedicated vault page to builders pages can be made. The only con (I can see as I write this) to this that people reviewing would to be members of the ABC group. If this the route that is taken I would suggest that after say 2 months, all modules on there for a particular month be bundled into an archive to save space as it is limited on here.

TR
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Tarot Redhand, 29 mars 2013 - 11:22 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_henesua]

               Tarot, that doesn't make much sense. If you upload to your own vault page, you can quickly swap it out with an updated file. And in doing so you preserve your download count.

If you upload a work to the ABC, it won't get updated. It will just be recorded in the submission state. Its too much to ask the ABC organizer to handle updates - and especially to expect that such a thing happen in a timely manner.

In anycase, I do not see a problem with hosting modules on the vault page for the month's ABC challenge. I just see more advantage to giving builders full control.

The original vision was that builders would create small modules and then get feedback. But its turned more into upload a module, get feedback, continue to work on the module. In other words, this is much more about process than finished product. In light of this I think the challenge should be set up to be more fluid, and allowing builders to be their own gate keepers encourages more fluidity as there is no one between them and their module.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par henesua, 29 mars 2013 - 11:35 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               I think the two month structure of one month to create and one month to review/polish makes sense - but I don't think it should overlap, because that detracts from the pool of people reviewing (since people working on a module for the current challenge won't review the previous month's).

I say just split it into two month chunks going forward.

So April should be a review month - go over the March submissions and they'll be improved.  Then in May, start a new building month.  June would then be a review month for May.  July is a new building month.  Etc.  If you want July to be something completely different and you have an interesting idea, go for it - but I don't think we should say "Hey, it would be great if people could play through these modules and review them" while also saying "We think people should try to build a module this month."  Because people are going to pick one of the two, most likely.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_henesua]

               I don't see a problem with having parallel processes. If the advantage to only holding the builder challenge every two months is avoiding a low turnout of builders in the off-month as we did for March, I don't see the upside.

The downside however is that we'll have less opportunities for builders to participate.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par henesua, 29 mars 2013 - 11:53 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

henesua wrote...

I don't see a problem with having parallel processes. If the advantage to only holding the builder challenge every two months is avoiding a low turnout of builders in the off-month as we did for March, I don't see the upside.

That wasn't my concern at all.  The problem is that the people building in March *aren't reviewing in March.*  Which also means that if half a dozen people make something in April, *those same half dozen won't be reviewing in April.*  By having parallel processes, you're effectively robbing people who created material of feedback from some people.