Normally, I'd offer a lot of general writing and formatting recommendations, but Pierre has really hit the nail on the head. It's a shame we haven't worked together more often (though I have a feeling I'm involved in the story about the author that burned out).
I'll offer some advice on combat encounters:
Many authors take the following (in my opinion, WRONG) approach:
Write combat encounters
Choose the creatures to fit the encounters
Finish off the rest of the module
Come back at the end and insert maps for combat encounters
Adjust "Features of the Area" based on the maps
This approach often leads to poorly thought-out encounters where the creatures don't interact well with the terrain (particularly because the author has already stopped focusing on the combat encounters and because writing quality degrades towards the end when enthusiasm begins running out), and the terrain is rushed and poorly thought-out. We've all played dozens of these modules. If you happen to think that four 8x8 Ruins of the Wild tiles assembled in a square is an appropriate combat map, then read no further.... you're beyond saving.
In my opinion (and I know Pieter agrees with me), the following is a best practice:
THINK about your combat encounter. Consider the theme you're going for and the creatures you want your PCs to fight.
Choose the creatures to best fit the encounter.
Design the map such that it compliments the creatures' abilities
Write the combat encounter (from scratch) with your creatures and map already completed.
Furthermore, when designing encounters, consider the following (based on lessons learned from myself and others):
What roles do your monsters consist of? Are they varied enough that the combat will be interesting? An all-out melee smashfest usually involves little strategic thinking, and a line of artillery firing on the PCs doesn't offer much flavor either. Try to vary your monsters by role so that the PCs can take varying approaches to defeating them.
You want your monsters to deliver some interesting effects in addition to damage, but you want to limit the number of inhibiting effects that stop the PCs in their tracks. Always consider the effect that immobilization will have on an encounter, and the options PCs might have for overcoming it.
Do your monsters deal enough damage? If they don't, it doesn't matter how interesting the combat will be - it won't be exciting because the PCs won't feel threatened (unless of course, there's an alternate victory condition that's at stake).
Does your map map contain interactive features? Oftentimes, the combat map is what makes an encounter dynamic. Providing ledges, cover, pits, and other interactive features can keep the encounter exciting. Figure out whether the PCs are fighting on their terms, or on the monsters' terms. If on the monsters' terms, design a map that compliments them but consider the added difficulty it may pose to the players. I find traps that interact well with terrain to often add a lot of fun - also, traps are the one area where authors have some more creative sway over combatants.
Is your map easy for the players and more importantly, DM, to understand? Can they clearly see where areas are elevated, or what is difficult/blocking/hindering terrain?
I could go on, but those are few (maybe obvious) things to think about.
Dave Kay LFR Writing Director Retiree dkay807 [at] yahoo [dot] com
It's a shame we haven't worked together more often (though I have a feeling I'm involved in the story about the author that burned out).
No, in your case we simply ran late. I was happy with your involvement, especially as it resulted in interesting encounters. As you wrote, terrain is often neglected. Merely adding a few squares of dififcult terrain does not make the encounter a lot more enticing, ideally terrain is a bit more interactive. When you add terrain, you also need to consider how the PCs may use it. Terrain that hampers only the PCs is not really terrain, but more akin to a trap or hazard. Allowing PCs to use the terrain against the monsters is more intersting. Terrain that only benefits the PCs is generally a bad idea as well.
In my opinion (and I know Pieter agrees with me), the following is a best practice:
THINK about your combat encounter. Consider the theme you're going for and the creatures you want your PCs to fight.
Choose the creatures to best fit the encounter.
Design the map such that it compliments the creatures' abilities
Write the combat encounter (from scratch) with your creatures and map already completed.
Most of this is good advice, but you should be very careful about #3 here. There is already a perception (at least in the SF bay area LFR community) that terrain in LFR adventures exists only to screw the players--all that stuff we heard in the runup to 4e and the early stages about 4e about how players would get to interact with the environment--push monsters into traps, swing on chandeliers, etc--was utter bunk for suckers. Rather, authors tend to ensure that the monsters are immune to anything that the terrain can possibly do to them. You only see lava if the monsters are immune or resist 10+ fire. You only see cliffs if the monsters have at-will push abilities or can fly--often both. If there is a difficult to reach ledge on the map, you can be sure that there will be artillery monsters stationed there in order to hammer your party from out of reach. Writing encounters this way does create difficulty, but it is also tedious, predictable, and limits your creativity in addition to reducing the tactical options available to PCs in the encounter and making the encounter less interesting.
Of course the opposite exteme isn't interesting either. A solo artillery monster by iteslf in a cave with nowhere to hide is a monster beatdown that is unlikely to be very interesting.
Rather than designing terrain to complement the creatures abilities, consider the following ideas:
1. First and foremost, ensure that the terrain fits the story. If this means that your encounter does not work, rework your encounter. For example, I was playing an adventure that took place on an earthmote this Monday. We saw the earthmote from the outside and it was a hunk of earth--with no water flowing out of it. Then, in one of the adventure's encounters, we went underground (in the earthmote) and ran into an underground stream. Wait a minute here. Where was the water coming from? Where was it going? This bothered one of the other players enough to take him out of the story entirely and, by voicing his incredulity, he took the rest of the table with him.
It doesn't matter how cool your combat environment is; if it doesn't make sense within the context of the story, save it for another story and find an environment that makes sense for this one.
2. Consider the context of the encounter. If the NPCs are ambushing the PCs, then it is to be expected that they will have secured favorable terrain. If the NPCs are defending a stronghold--perhaps a goblin tribe defending their caves, then they deserve especially favorable terrain. On the other hand, if the PCs and your monsters run into each other in the middle of the forest, there is no reason to expect that the terrain will be perfectly suited to your monsters.
That said, there are limits to this. If the NPCs are trying to ambush the PCs in a city environment, they probably don't have time to get everyone on the rooftops of nearby buildings just in case the PCs take the one way to get to their destination that happens to go through that area. What if the PCs decided to walk down 4th street and turn left on A street instead of walking down 2nd street and turning right on A street to reach their destination? Then the NPCs are sitting on the rooftops at the corner of 2nd and B street all night waiting for PCs who will never show up. Likewise, PCs are experienced adventurers and are generally not idiots. If they see the road going down a narrow defile and a broken down cart blocking the road up ahead, they are going to say, "it's a trap" faster than Admiral Ackbar, stop and send scouts up the sides of the cliffs to ambush the ambushers. The more unfavorable you make the terrain, the more likely that the players are going to say, "hell no" and take your encounter off the railroad tracks.
3. Consider how both NPC and PC abilities will interact with the terrain. If the terrain is interesting because the NPCs can do cool stuff with it but the only interest it holds for PCs is "how do I stay out of all of these things that are going to screw me?" that aspect of the terrain design is a failure. The best case situation for the PCs is then that they never see any of the so-called cool terrain features in action but rather that they and the NPCs stand in the one safe corner of the room and duke it out. That is a recipe for static combats, not a recipe for dynamic and interesting ones. (In this regard, things like autotargetting crossbow turrets are a massive design failure of 4e. When I started playing 1-1 adventures and crossbow turrets were everywhere, we often saw the pressure plates and thought, "cool, let's push the monsters onto the trap so that the crossbows will activate and shoot them." Instead, the crossbows activated and shot us. Lesson learned. I haven't seen anyone try to force monsters to activate a trap again. We now know that doing so can only hurt us and will never help. Tide of Iron? Not nearly as interesting as it initially looked).
A battle on a frozen lake (hopefully with some islands or a boat stuck in the ice to give a little bit of static terrain) could be interesting. If the monsters all have some kind of icewalk ability, fine. But consider writing in what happens if the PCs use fire spells too. If the PCs can melt the ice with their scorching bursts or flaming spheres and dump the monsters into the freezing water, the encounter is much more interesting than if the ice is merely a way to say, "All heavy armor PCs (who don't have acrobatics) must move at half speed for the entire encounter or fall prone. Monsters (of course) are immune to this effect."
However, two thoughts. One, in general, the terrain may be used to provide an additional difficulty because the encounter needs it (due to playtesting or author's vision). Often, this makes sense in non-random encounters, as the monsters choose the favored ground, then the PCs appear on the scene.
Second, in most cases the PCs have the advantage. Even the most friendly of terrains can be turned against the foes because players have so much flexibility. In a home campaign there was an epic fight involving a gnoll king behind a huge pit full of cadavers (which had a bad effect). The DM never thought that every single one of his monsters would end up in that pit and that none of us would be in it for more than a round... and yet, that is what happened. Thus, authors often have to be careful about neutral terrain because it is seldom neutral.
When playtesting, we often recommend neutral terrain be added to an encounter that "needs something" but has adequate challenge. That's when neutral terrain becomes fun and it is usually ok that it will probably favor the PCs.
But, that said, I do agree with you. Encounters as a rule will be better if the foes are not immune and if players are rewarded for cool powers with forced movement, teleportation, skill bennies, etc. Having foes with a bit of resistance to a trap or powers to get out is more rewarding than foes with complete immunity.
But, that said, I do agree with you. Encounters as a rule will be better if the foes are not immune and if players are rewarded for cool powers with forced movement, teleportation, skill bennies, etc. Having foes with a bit of resistance to a trap or powers to get out is more rewarding than foes with complete immunity.
Agreed, but I will say that even "a bit" of resistance is often enough to make using the terrain a losing proposition for PCs. For example, if the terrain deals 2d6 fire damage on entry and at the start of the creature's turn, it is a losing proposition for PCs to move critters with resist 10 fire into the terrain. The most likely result is that it accomplishes nothing except moving the monster out of range of melee PCs. And if the PCs had to get close to the terrain in order to use those tactics, they are making it easier for the monsters to move them into that terrain (which will usually deal significant damage to PCs) in return for no appreciable reward. In the absence of exact knowledge about the amount of resistance and the amount of damage, the smart move for the PCs is to stay as far from the terrain as possible. This partially defeats the purpose of having interesting terrain because the (significant) risks involved with trying to use the terrain outweigh the (miniscule) rewards of using it.
IME, as boring as they are, pits and cliffs are by far the most likely kind of terrain for PCs to use because they can easily tell if monsters are immune to them (flying monsters generally are; non-flying monsters are generally neither immune nor resistant) and the PCs can be reasonably certain that the pit or cliff will work as expected: if they push the monster off of it, the monster will fall and land prone; the pit won't suddenly start shooting at them. Other terrain tends to be ignored or actively avoided. I think that highlights the qualities that terrain needs to have in order to be able to make an encounter interesting. The most likely result of its use needs to be a benefit to the PCs. We're not going to go out of our way to push a creature into a hazard which, in the 45% of the time that the monster actually goes in, will still deal no damage 70% of the time. (If the terrain does 2d6 damage, it's not worth using on a monster with resist 10, but probably is if the monster only has resist 5). Additionally, the operation of the terrain needs to be obvious and intuitive--and obviously not a trap. (Sorry to say, but past experience with LFR traps has taught us not to try to use them against our enemies. Most of the time, they don't work and a significant portion of the time they actually start shooting at us. Even if your trap is different, we have been trained not to take that chance. It only takes one "gotcha" moment to put a huge damper on creativity and we have had many more than one).
The DM has a role in the interaction between terrain and PCs just as much as the author and the players. In my experience, you need to train players before they start to actively use less obvious terrain. The best way to do so as a DM is to either simply provide the mechanics at the start of the encounter, or to add hints through skill use. For example, when dealing with traps an Arcana or Thievery check could help. Furthermore, a DM should not be afrain to consider elements the author thought of and to try make the interaction worthwhile for the players (within reason).
Of course, the responsibility is also with the players. They can add some fun to a fight by their own behavior, although, I admit, without a DM to go along, it can go sour quickly.
Note btw that I have seen and run a similar amount of LFR adventures with "neutral" (monsters have no special abilities to avoid them) pits and cliffs as with negative ones (monster can avoid them and have active abilities to push/pull/slide opponents).
Following is my methodology on planning / writing adventures for LFR.
At every step, inform the writing director of what you are doing and what you *intend* to do. Ask them if they can clear it, and *wait for their response* before proceeding. Otherwise, you may use a lot of time planning encounters and writing parts of an adventure *that will never end up being used in the adventure you’re writing*.
That said -
Think about what sort of challenge I want to give the players.
Plan the encounters. Look through the Monster Builder for monsters of the appropriate level, in particular looking for powers, resistances, auras, and so forth, remembering that levels can be adjusted up or down, and look through the Dungeon Master Guides (there are two at this time) to look for fantastic terrain and traps.
Look at recently printed and still available in stores Dungeon Tile sets to plan the terrain of each encounter. Make sure I only use one, or at most two, sets of Dungeon Tiles.
Add monsters to each terrain piece.
Write adventure – plan NPCs, the storyline, etc.
Adjust above as needed.
Go over everything and make sure it is all FAIR.
Why plan encounters first? Because some encounters are flat out boring, and that’s not what you want. The worst thing in my opinion is to decide that the PCs have to face such and such a monster and so and so the monster ally, in such and such a place, and because of the game statistics of those monsters and terrain, end up with an absolutely boring yawn-fest of a combat. Things can be adjusted, yes, but it’s best not to start with busted material.
Why look at Dungeon Tile available sets? Because you want DMs to have the option of using these handy and colorful props if they want. Same reason to keep the number of sets down – you don’t want DMs to have to spend uber money to give their players the full experience.
On a note to an earlier poster – yes, monsters will often be able to take far better advantage of terrain than PCs. This is* natural* for intelligent monsters. Is the intelligent and vulnerable to fire “paper rakshasa” (I just made this monster up) going to be hanging out in a volcano? Or hanging out in a paper factory, where he can easily hide? What would you do if you were a paper rakshasa?
What is FAIR, and why bother to make things fair?
Fair is when the author uses game mechanics to create a situation. Unfair is when the author thinks “oh yeah it would be cool if this were to be happen” and merely forces it on the players.
One DM in our area wrote a My Realms adventure, in which the PCs start surprised by a buncha kobolds. The PCs get no chance; it’s just that the DM thought it would be COOL if the kobolds could ambush the players, so he made it happen. Oh, they were under camouflaged netting, but no Perception checks were allowed at all. That’s what I mean by unfair.
Now, when I do things like that, I just have the PCs travel for three days through the mist-shrouded valleys of the Halzimer mountain range, where strange booming screams and evil panting constantly echo, imposing penalties on Perception due to the constrained vision and interfering sounds. Then I throw in some monsters with tremorsense or blindsight that act as scouts for the kobolds, that alert the kobolds of the PCs. So, when the PCs reach the appropriate spot, the kobolds are ready to spring their trap – probably surprising the PCs unless the PCs make the abnormally high Perception check. (If necessary, additional circumstances can apply – ritual magic that helps hide the kobolds, more ritual magic that interferes with PC perception, a circumstance fear-based penalty to Perception any PC that fails a saving throw at the beginning of the day, to account for the weird and unsettling setting – the caravan guards that chatter loudly to try to avoid their unease, the merchant that thinks he knows how to sing but really only knows how to shriek loudly (but that nobody can shut up because it’s his caravan), etc.)
In the first case, the PCs have NO chance, because the DM decided to just come up with something and stick it to the players. In the second case, the PCs seem to have no chance, because the DM layered on so many circumstance penalties. But really, the second case IS fair – it’s all in the rules. (Besides, alert players would say their PCs are very watchful, considering all the distractions around, and the possibility that there could be trouble.)
On the subject of writing encounters first, then writing the story to flesh it out – in 3rd edition, you could start with whatever monster, then just pop on some spells and/or equipment, and get the desired effect. In 4th edition, though, things really don’t work that way; monsters have very restricted powers and abilities, and rituals don’t provide the sort of combat buffs they did in 3rd edition.
So really – to get a compelling overall play experience (which includes thrilling combats), I think it important to write encounters first. The story can always be adjusted or fixed; a boring combat ends up being a boring combat.
I know some writers may want an example of this – well, consider a level 11-14 encounter with two slightly lower level beholder eye of flames, a low-level bloodfire harpy, and salamander archers, on fantastic terrain that causes fire attacks to do +10 damage. (per DMG, I think it’s a “power font” or something similar).
The beholder eye of flames don’t have particularly high to-hit, but their ability to cause vulnerability fire isn’t dependent on to-hit, it’s automatic. Besides, they have attacks that hit different defenses, so can concentrate on targets their attacks will better be able to affect. There are two in the encounter, because there are so many daily, encounter, and item powers at level 11-14 that shut down single monsters. The bloodfire harpy and beholders fly, making them difficult targets. The bloodfire harpy aura does automatic fire damage to the entire party. The salamander archers have multiple attacks that target AC with the fire keyword.
Now put them in terrain on which the beholder and harpy can fly around, and the salamander archers are in a place hard for the PCs to reach. Add some flaming terrain – low damage improvised damage terrain – for the beholders to slide the PCs into. (Note: low damage, because high damage is just overkill considering all the damage per round).
The net result – the entire party takes fire damage from the aura (unaugmented by the power font, but augmented by vulnerability), the salamander archers focus fire on low-defense healers, and the beholders slide things around and whack them with fire rays. The damage per round is pretty impressive.
Now – consider what happens if mummy rot, a disease appropriate to level 11-14 play, is on the PCs. (The PCs may have run into this as the result of failing a skill challenge, or have been attacked by mummies and/or a mummy lord in a previous encounter). Now, on top of having massive focused damage on the party, healing effects are halved.
Oh, there are lots of workarounds. Potions of resistance to resist fire, Keoghtom’s ointment to turn off the disease. There are various powers that help counteract this encounter too, particularly AC boosting and resistance type encounter / dailies. But this sort of encounter is almost certainly one in which the PCs will be fighting for their lives, even limiting the total EXP of the monsters to regular 12th level / 14th level experience.
Does the encounter make sense? Sure. Intelligent monsters will seek the best conditions under which to fight, and that’s what the PCs face. Maybe the beholders couldn’t afford an immolith, figuring their gold was best spent hiring guardians to simply overwhelm enemies with massive damage.
Contrast that encounter with an encounter featuring a bunch of level 12 / 14 brutes with no complementary abilities. Oh, it can be flavorful, the big brute hill giant bully that roars in impotent rage as his drinking buddies bite the dust. But such an encounter is in no way *challenging* for the PCs.
Well, that’s my bit for now. Note - the beholder encounter is probably a little TOO d*** exciting for LFR. If I wrote something like that into an adventure, I would put a dire warning in the blurb for the adventure, or make sure the PCs understood the incredible danger they were likely to face (even if not supplying specifics, let them know they could be in horrible danger), or make sure the PCs had the opportunity to fill up on the best equipment / consumables to help face off against the monsters. Probably a bit of all three.
You kind of left me wanting to try that encounter!
For me, I first ponder the story. I try to think like an outline, though I don't actually write an outline. I create various notes on scraps of paper (reduce, reuse, recycle). As things start to gel I rewrite my notes. In general, I think of broad story concepts, such as rescuing a princess in a tower, having to partner with a donkey, fighting a cool dragon that is hard to fell but can be befriended. Then I start to toss those ideas around and think through likely encounters and flow. How does it start, how do the PCs go from learning about the problem to doing something about it, where is the princess, that is a nice boulder.
As I go I rewrite those notes further, now sketching out my encounters a bit. I envision a ruined castle with a moat of lava and a near-destroyed bridge. I sketch it out on really small pieces of paper, just rough ideas. That kind of sketch process can produce good ideas, such as floating blocks of ice, two ramps, etc. (Happened while sitting pool side on a family trip in Phoenix). Around this time I go from rough ideas of monsters and traps to actually generating a list of candidates. I spend way too much time comparing them, analyzing which might work together better, etc. It is almost a certainty that I am not very good at this, because I spend a lot of time and often a playtester will mention something just as good right off the top of their head.
Once that is done I am good for the proposal stage. Whew! A lot of work to just feel good at the outline level! Once the proposal is back I begin in earnest, working in Word in the actual template. I start from first page to last, without skipping around, in hopes that this improves the flow. It also helps me not make too many revisions.
Once the first draft is done I run a playtest with my better players in the area. If writing low heroic I also pick some friends that primarily play other RPGs. I make sure to include women in my low heroic playtest, for a diversity of appeal. These are experienced gamers but with low 4E knowledge, perfect to give very different feedback from what an experienced LFR group would give. I revise and then submit the first draft. If possible I have also received feedback from other peeps I trust around the globe, usually 2-3 tables with at least one being High tier.
Ideally the timing means that the draft gets more playtests by someone the admin picks. I then collate the feedback and make revisions, playtesting again if needed. Final is sent in.
Now the admin returns the final pdf. I read it over, looking for any serious glitches, such as stat block errors. As much as I worked to remove these earlier, I usually find one or two. If important I then let the admin know - sometimes it can be fixed before it hits the server. I don't argue anything that is an opinion, as that is the editor's job to make the call on any such changes.
Then I put on a flameproof vest and wait for the forums to start screaming...
Then I put on a flameproof vest and wait for the forums to start screaming...
I could use one of those bad boys.
My process is very similar to yours. Bravo. Although, rather than scraps of paper, I've created a few Excel templates that I use to track my encounter breakdown, XP breakdown, creature breakdown, etc. When I'm managing another author, I send those along to help him out.
Dave Kay LFR Writing Director Retiree dkay807 [at] yahoo [dot] com
My process is very similar to yours. Bravo. Although, rather than scraps of paper, I've created a few Excel templates that I use to track my encounter breakdown, XP breakdown, creature breakdown, etc. When I'm managing another author, I send those along to help him out.
Further proving that we were separated at birth, I forgot to mention that for all mechanical calculations and for my final decisions on monsters I use an Excel sheet. This tracks everything from the possible monster permutations to the XP to the gold per encounter to the skill challenge DCs, to item selection. Not automated mind you, just a place to hold things and keep me honest and from missing things.
I read it over, looking for any serious glitches, such as stat block errors. As much as I worked to remove these earlier, I usually find one or two. If important I then let the admin know - sometimes it can be fixed before it hits the server. I don't argue anything that is an opinion, as that is the editor's job to make the call on any such changes. 
