What makes a scenario great?
	In rough order of importance, the elements of a great scenario are:
	1.  Believability, detail, and knowledge/use of the editor.
	2.  Writing, wit, and imagination.
	3.  Fights and other tactical challenges.
	4.  Dialogue and plot.
	5.  Innovation.
	6.  Size.
	7.  Riddles and puzzles.
	8.  Custom graphics.
	1.  Believability is the single most important element, because it
is what hooks the player.  The player must want to solve the problem posed
by a particular scenario or she won't finish playing it.  All of the
elements of a scenario add to or detract from its believability and
believability either arises or doesn't arise from all of the scenario's
elements.
	For examples of believability, consider the naming of characters,
towns, and monsters.  The good designer will only choose names which make
sense - which trip off the tongue.  Who doesn't shake her head
incredulously at obviously made-up names, silly names, or names which are
impossible to pronounce?  Frankly, some bit of gobbledygook or another is
almost enough to make me quit playing a scenario.  For fine examples of
names, just open-up an atlas, phone book, or book on mythology.
	What about towns, dungeons and outdoor maps?  The designer has to
check to make sure that none of the town and dungeon levels in the scenario
are heavily regimented, unrealistically stylised, or empty and boring.
Outdoor sections should look feasible and a little demonstrated knowledge
of geography would help.  Don't put underground waterfalls above-ground.
Don't have roads meander senselessly across plains and back again - roads
are always built between centres of activity or dwellings.
	Believability suffers when the author puts more effort into one (or
some) aspect(s) of the scenario than others.  For example, elaborate chains
of specials still need to be shown-off against a backdrop of clever
dialogue and solid town design.  Additionally, lack of effort or detail in
one area or another indicates a designer's blind spot, and this should be
corrected during beta-testing.
	It is possible to show detail throughout the scenario and that
detail can be the mark of the master story-teller.  It can indicate a
coherent and cohesive mental picture of what the author is trying to convey
but, when it is used clumsily, it alienates the player (that is, it reminds
one that one is playing a game).  It is possible to have too much icing on
the cake, just as it is possible to not have enough.
	There has to be a demonstrated ability with the editor for any
scenario to succeed.  All of the errors in the editor should be fixed and
the whole of the scenario should reflect the designer's personal stamp.
There should be no oddities or clumsy bits which should have been
cleaned-up during beta-testing.  It sounds simple, but a variety of
specials used in creative ways makes an outstanding scenario - barring this
achievement, the author should at least make sure all specs. are
functioning specs.
	2.  Spelling counts - period.  A scenario full of spelling or
grammar mistakes is unplayable and even a few mistakes are enough to make
me quit.  It is impossible to make a great scenario without using a
dictionary.  This is also one of the main reasons for having beta-testers.
	The writing has to have some wit, some verve, some panache.  Every
poor scenario has this aspect in common:  an idiot robot-voice telling the
player what she is feeling.  Don't tell - evoke.  Also, resist the impulse
to get wacky or revert to puns.  Avoid hyperbole.
	I'm not thrilled with the story-telling aspect of scenario design,
but it is a necessary part.  There will always be those players who
bulldoze their way through scenarios without stopping to read the hints,
but the majority of players want to find themselves in the middle of a
story.  If you can't tell a story, you can't write a good scenario.
	3.  A great scenario will have to include a few memorable fights
and by this I do not mean those which are horribly one-sided.  One of the
game's biggest thrills comes from the possibility of one of your characters
dying and the chance that it might be possible to get through that battle
without that death, if you started over just one more time.  I am
particularly interested in the tactical puzzles posed by different monsters
in different environments, but others are not; whatever you do, try not to
make the battles too easy or too hard - there is a big, forgiving
middle-ground of fights out there and with a bit of playtesting it can be
found in any scenario.
	4.  It is important that the NPCs have more to talk about than just
their jobs or your mission.  It is better to have too much dialogue than
just the bare minimum, as talking is essentially optional.  It is in this
aspect of the game where your skill as a storyteller again comes into play.

	The plot is another way to hook the player and it has to be at
least fairly pedestrian, sturdy, and complete, before you start making it
elaborate.  This same rule applies to dungeon design:  make sure it all
works before you start gussying it up.
	5.  Innovation can crop up in any part or parts of a scenario, and
it is difficult to define.  Most people can spot it when it happens.
	6.  Size matters; it takes more of a concerted effort to conceive
of and execute a larger scenario.  If a player only wants to play for a
couple of hours, she doesn't look for a complete scenario which can be
played in that time, she just plays for as long as she wants.  Several
towns, dungeons, and outdoor sections are minimum for a good scenario.
	On the other hand, large, sprawling, and empty levels and outdoor
sections look terrible; they accentuate the designer's lack of ideas,
flexibility, and appreciation for the task at hand.
	7.  Riddles and puzzles are only fun when the player is able to
solve them and the intended path should never be impeded by them.
Beta-testers are needed to try the things the author takes for granted;
unfinished scenarios with fatal flaws should never be unleashed on an
unsuspecting public.
	8.  Custom graphics can look great or they can look like crap.
They aren't necessary for a good scenario, but someday someone is going to
re-do all the terrain, items, and monsters in one scenario for a real
eye-popper. The amount of nice graphics available for scenario designers to
use is disproportionate to the number of nice scenarios to play and why is
that, do you think?  It's because it's easier to crank out the graphics.
Now I'm not complaining about this huge and largely untapped library, but
what good will it do us when we are awash in unused works of art?  How much
fun is it to look at pretty graphics?  I'd like to see some of that energy
go into scenario design.

	Tony Wilsdon
wilsdon@ns.sympatico.ca
