So post Gen Con analysis of the House of the Red Doors begins. I am happy about many parts of the adventure. I love the story and the fact that a successful conclusion requires paying attention and solving puzzles. There's certainly times for dice rolling, but in most cases they do not revolve around combat. A player can find enough fighting to get their fill, but will their PC survive? (Spoiler it's not likely.)
I'm also happy with the overall vibe. It's untethered and not narratively linear. The parts don't have to make sense as in a "real world" dungeon. The encounters take place in an otherworld or dreamland. The inhabitants are likewise unchained from reality. This is a great freedom in the design.
The endings all have several solutions. That was a conscience design choice. Picking the right solution is the main objective. Puzzles do not have to be death traps with a single linear solution. Like your dungeons, they too can provide more avenues for success that conclude with more or less advantageous results for the navigator. In fact, all the puzzles in The House of the Red Doors have multiple solutions. However, your PC may not survive some of them...
A big takeaway from doing the funnel 27 times in a row over three days, was the impact of repeatedly presenting the adventure. I've certainly heard and try to observe the advice about italics text for an adventure. "Keep it brief and to the point. It's not a place for flowery exposition." The point has never been driven home so hard as when one presents the same text 10 times in 4 hours. On the last day, I just started making up shorter passages. I'm still working on abbreviating as much as I can.
I also have been considering changing the second part of the adventure. There is not a lot of risk to the PC and I had left a part of the introduction unused. The choices always impacted the end and the scoring, but not play. It is time to rectify that. So part 2 will change a bit. Many of the core pieces are still there, just re-jiggered, impactful, and shortened. Fear not, making duck faces will certainly be kept.
This was a newer iteration for the the scoring as well. It produced more tempered scores on the high end. Best was 14. I had seven or eight who scored 5 or more points. The negative scores spiked a great deal. A record worst of -21 was recorded. So I think I overreacted on negative values as well as making the opportunities to gain them too numerous. Having an alignment still introduces a lot of swingy-ness into the scoring and 85% percent of players at Gen Con opted to be aligned. So hopefully the next iteration finally strikes the right balance.
So the Kickstarter is next and right around the corner. I'm excited about the potential for rewriting this 1 on 1 adventure into a true solo adventure.
I'm also happy with the overall vibe. It's untethered and not narratively linear. The parts don't have to make sense as in a "real world" dungeon. The encounters take place in an otherworld or dreamland. The inhabitants are likewise unchained from reality. This is a great freedom in the design.
The endings all have several solutions. That was a conscience design choice. Picking the right solution is the main objective. Puzzles do not have to be death traps with a single linear solution. Like your dungeons, they too can provide more avenues for success that conclude with more or less advantageous results for the navigator. In fact, all the puzzles in The House of the Red Doors have multiple solutions. However, your PC may not survive some of them...
A big takeaway from doing the funnel 27 times in a row over three days, was the impact of repeatedly presenting the adventure. I've certainly heard and try to observe the advice about italics text for an adventure. "Keep it brief and to the point. It's not a place for flowery exposition." The point has never been driven home so hard as when one presents the same text 10 times in 4 hours. On the last day, I just started making up shorter passages. I'm still working on abbreviating as much as I can.
I also have been considering changing the second part of the adventure. There is not a lot of risk to the PC and I had left a part of the introduction unused. The choices always impacted the end and the scoring, but not play. It is time to rectify that. So part 2 will change a bit. Many of the core pieces are still there, just re-jiggered, impactful, and shortened. Fear not, making duck faces will certainly be kept.
This was a newer iteration for the the scoring as well. It produced more tempered scores on the high end. Best was 14. I had seven or eight who scored 5 or more points. The negative scores spiked a great deal. A record worst of -21 was recorded. So I think I overreacted on negative values as well as making the opportunities to gain them too numerous. Having an alignment still introduces a lot of swingy-ness into the scoring and 85% percent of players at Gen Con opted to be aligned. So hopefully the next iteration finally strikes the right balance.
So the Kickstarter is next and right around the corner. I'm excited about the potential for rewriting this 1 on 1 adventure into a true solo adventure.
Comments
Post a Comment