I was having a discussion about D&D and other RPGs with one of my long-time D&D players and how pen and paper (PnP) differs from the modern computer based role-playing games we have today. It led to a discussion about design and mechanics for both formats, and we both came to the same conclusion... Read on to hear what we concluded and why it has an impact on the design of my NWN2 modules that are based upon my PnP campaign, and especially the latest Predestinated Days...
The Discussion!
It was while my friend and I were looking over the original "Temple of Elemental Evil" PnP module, when we both observed that the module had maps showing three levels of an inn. We both recognised that neither of us (as DMs) would have made our players role-play every "room" as laid out within the module... and I guess no other DM would do so either. Arguably, there was too much detail of "emptiness" that would not make for exciting gameplay. To their defence, PnP modules are designed in such a way to give the DM an overall picture for them to work with in relation to any events and actions that the players may take during a gaming session. Therefore, a DM only takes what they need from the module design, and only plays the parts the players are interested in. This is a major difference compared to a computer game! While playing PnP, the story remains focussed on the player's actions rather than what the players are being "forced" to work through within a computer designed module maps or setup. Consider this...
In PnP, maps and module details are used to setup an environment for the players to explore and play their story in their own way, at their own pace, and they can ignore parts that serve no immediate purpose. E.g. If an inn has 20 rooms, and the players explore one, the DM can describe one such room, and, if need be, add that exploring the other 19 gave the same result (taking next to no time disrupting the flow of the game)... unless the DM had other plans for one of the rooms, of course.
Within a computer environment, however, such reinterpreted maps and module details can overcrowd its design with potential "emptiness" that can quickly affect the pace and enjoyment of an equivalent game. There is no DM to inform the players that the remaining rooms are "the same as the first explored" and so a PC gamer would have to explore every "empty" room just to reach the conclusion that there is nothing else to be found. This is a forced "gap" or "break" in the flow of the gameplay that a player should not have to experience in a story based RPG.
This fundamental difference between the two formats means that when designing an area in a computer environment, I believe designers should not have the same leeway or feel the need to include the "empty" spaces to anywhere near the same extent as any PnP module does, which has been prepared and provided for different gaming possibilities. If, for example, we designed an inn similar to the one above for a computer game, with three levels and 90% of it was empty, my friend and I concluded that it would make for rather boring play: to simply go through every room and find nothing after ten minutes of searching.
If it is not clear from above, my friend and I concluded that
- Modules and campaigns designed for PnP worked because a DM could manage the module material to work according to the player's story expectations, and avoid repetitive boredom.
- Computer designed story-based modules and campaigns are weakened if incorporating "empty" spaces originally designed to "flesh out" the game, and can create boredom. If left out, the pace of the story would improve, and focus the gameplay on what matters for the story.
Removing The Unwarranted Gaps!
The problem is, I believe some computer RPGs (even some mainstream ones) have suffered from this kind of "empty" design because of trying to imitate historical PnP designs in an attempt to replicate the same gaming experience as PnP provides. Large open world designs have been built to allow a player to explore and find quests, but as these worlds have grown in size, they have become less story focussed or had their pace affected due to such areas of "emptiness". I have found myself playing such games, which had sounded excellent when reading about them, but later found myself somewhat deflated and even bored when running all over the world with little focus or only to find yet another item that just gets heaped in with the rest to sell.
I am reasonably certain that not everyone will agree with my conclusion about "empty" spaces, and I do agree that some "emptiness" is not unreasonable and sometimes can be expected. Personally, however, I believe such a design is probably more suited to a "sandbox" type environment rather than a story focussed campaign. However, if what I describe above about "emptiness" sounds familiar to you, then I hope to reassure you that I am doing my best to ensure no such large "gaps" will remain within my campaign. To be clear: exploration and secrets remain, but traversing over large landscapes (or walking through empty buildings) trying to locate a certain path or item will not be time-consuming... for the player at least. Furthermore, my aim is to fill any gaps that might otherwise appear somewhat eventless and/or serve little purpose within my areas. I am not saying every corridor, nook and cranny will have something to do within it, but I am saying I am trying to avoid the "empty" spaces that are often added just because a place is expected to exist. E.g. A city has many dwellings and potential places to visit, but you will not be expected to enter and explore every building, but may be directed to a specific building in the course of an adventure instead.My D&D design goal, if I can achieve it, is to keep the player focussed on one area of the story at a time. Note, the player will still be able to hear of and pick up a number of leads to various tasks at any time, but my goal is to hopefully encourage the player to focus on just one such quest to investigate, and then see it through to its end, wherever possible. In this sense, my quests or tasks are not designed in the "sandbox" style, (only to be handled as they are found or become accessible), but, instead, work as solid leads to an adventure that the player can do there and then. The decision of which lead to follow (of a potential few), is left to the player to make... where opting to follow one path instead of another may possibly affect the remaining quests.
My aim is to initiate a task or quest that offers something immediately available to the player and, wherever possible, provide an "on the spot" objective as a current goal. Such tasks or quests can vary in length, of course, but the aim is to allow the player to achieve something by following the task without having to park it as a "to do" quest: one that is only available if and when the heroes happen to discover its location. I believe this is what sets a NWN story adventure aside from other RPGs as they try to remain focussed on a particular story line, leading from one quest to another as the story unfolds. That said, it is not unreasonable for rumours of a place, or an event, or even an item that can be discovered to be added as quests set in the near future. However, I would suggest that such quests are not too far removed from the main story and are not of little substance, such as finding a hidden item that is just going to be sold at the next vendor's establishment! In my own gaming experience, such unfocussed "quests" can have a detrimental affect on the pace of the game. I also believe such incidental "quests" should not be given the status of a "quest" at all, as they distract from the game at hand.
Older Areas Revised!
In latest build news, I am continuing to optimise some of my original area designs being used for this final stage of the module; to consider a multi-player (MP) co-op environment as well as a single-player (SP) one. The areas I am talking about were originally designed many years ago, prior this post I made in September 2021, which mentions when I learned more about area load times for a MP game.
Basically, prior this date, I designed areas with no real thought about how an area's contents may affect its loading time, especially when playing a MP game. All my area designs and testing prior this date were mostly done in a SP environment, which, when compared to a MP game, load much faster (up to ten times faster) subject to the area content involved. Note, I am not talking about loading times based upon just an area's size, but more about its actual content, such as lights, visual effects, useable objects, creatures, etc. As an example, a designed area may load in 5 seconds for a SP game (not too long), but that can be closer to 50 seconds in a MP gamer if care is not given to the area contents included.
When I released my first module, I did notice a couple of its areas were taking longer to load than others, but lack of MP testing at the time did not highlight this issue sufficiently compared to when I was working and testing larger areas (with more content) of the second module. This is what led to the post I made above, and I started making a conscious effort from that time to optimise areas as required to try to keep loading times to below 30 seconds for a MP game, if possible. Such redesigns has including breaking a single area into two, reconsidering lighting and visual effects, and generally trying to design areas more "intelligently" with respect to interactable objects.
Other Updates
Alongside reworking the areas, I have also been writing conversations that move the main quest forward. I had to look back over other conversations related to the same quest to ensure every worked logically, and was able to finish off some of these others too. It concluded a quest line that I am glad to finish as it was preventing me from focussing on events later in the adventure. It was a matter of three areas of the module (conversations, are designs and items) that I needed to work on at once to complete the quest state and refocus my attention on a later stage.
I still have some areas that need optimising, but I hope to address these as I move to them with each remaining quest I finish. Currently, I believe I have only around two side quests to complete (although there is a slim possibility this can increase), and then just the final quest for the main story.
I also have around three areas to finish, with one that currently only has one room! Two other areas have the rooms outlined (nothing else at all yet), and the "purpose" of them and what the PCs are to gain from exploring them is yet to be finalised. Once fully furnished, they need to go under the "gap" test (not boring to play) before I am satisfied with them for the final testing.
I am not quite at the point of saying "the end is in sight", but I do feel I have taken a large step forward over the last month. Look out for the blog title when I make such a claim, as it may well be closer to final testing and release by then. In the meantime, here are some screenshots from the new area and an area my wife recently play tested from stage 2. For the record, my wife is currently replaying module one again, and helping to find any last minute points that need addressing there. This is why there has been a v1.42 update for this April. I am hoping she will finish her latest play through this month and any last minute changes required will come in May if necessary.
![]() |
| A Stage 2 Encounter! |
![]() |
| Stage 3 Area Testing! |
![]() |
| More Stage 3 Area Testing! |














