So, you’ve got an idea for a big adventure, and you’re going to release it as a trilogy or other multi-part series?

Good for you! I love series of adventures. At least, I like most of them…

Recent readers of this blog may have noticed I’ve been getting very annoyed at some recent D&D Adventurers League releases – both official and Convention-Created Content. These have been multi-part stories that break one of my fundamental beliefs about adventure-writing. And that is this: Each adventure should be able to be played and give a satisfying experience even if the players haven’t or won’t play the other adventures.

Otherwise stated as: Each adventure should stand alone – to some extent.

It’s fine to have continuing plot threads. It’s fine to be part 2 of 3. However, if you play an adventure, I think it’s a reasonable assumption that you get given a goal at the start of the adventure, and you finish that goal by its end, even if the story continues into part 3.

If you don’t have that, then it’s likely you’ve got the structure of the adventure wrong. Your outline for the adventure isn’t great.

The first trilogy of Season 8 of the Adventurers League has this problem: Part one sets up the mystery of a map. You might reasonably expect to solve the map in part one and explore where it leads. Instead, you visit four of the five locations on the map and then have to wait until part two to visit the fifth. The second part is a lot better – you explore the fifth location, then discover something amazing. Part three has its own story that relates back to the original concept but isn’t your original goal. If this were a duology (with parts 1 & 2 combined) rather than a trilogy, the structure would be far better.

“Oh, this is getting too long, I better chop it into two parts” is a horrible way of determining the structure. It needs more thought. Famously, The Lord of the Rings was written as one tale but split into three parts due to printing constraints. However, the choice of where the splits happen was taken with care. Frodo’s capture might be a huge cliff-hanger, but it also ends one narrative strand of the tale and recasts what the next part will be. It’s time for a pause. (Note that the structure of the book is in six “books”).

Many years ago, Jim Shooter gave a set of guidelines for comic-book writing. One of the features of comic book series is that they go for years or decades, and there’s normally a month or more between each issue. So, there’s the chance that any issue might be the reader’s first issue. Here are his guidelines:

• The characters must be introduced.
• Their situation must be established.
• The conflict must be introduced.
• Suspense must be built.
• A climax must be reached.
• A resolution must be achieved.

These are just solid story-writing guidelines. Guess what? They’re also solid adventure-writing guidelines!

So, how does this work in the structure of a trilogy or other multi-part adventure series? Obviously, those guidelines work for the overall structure of the series – it needs a beginning, it needs an end, and interesting things need to happen in-between. However, it also applies to individual parts. In a later part, you still need to introduce the characters, situation and conflict, but this doesn’t have to be as detailed as in the opening instalment; an optional section with greater details is good if the DM or players haven’t played the previous parts.

The very important bit is to give suspense, a climax and a resolution even within one instalment. Think about what story content you’re providing. What challenges must the players overcome? How does it relate to the larger story?

The least effective adventures are “You need to travel from A to B” and part one ends somewhere between A and B for no reason except you ran out of space.

“You must explore this tower” where part A is getting to the tower, and part B is exploring the tower? That feels unsatisfying.

“Find the location of a hidden tower” as part A, with “Explore the tower” as part B? More interesting. Part of the trick here is to frame the first story in terms of finding the tower rather than exploring the tower. If you have the first adventure all revolving around finding a lost map, then the resolution of that “you’ve found the map” gives the players a feeling of accomplishment even if they never return for the second part.

The middle parts of trilogies tend to be weaker than the opening and closing parts. This is not universal. Consider Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back. That’s a brilliant example of providing a complete story while also ending on a massive cliff-hanger for part 3. I’m also very fond of The Two Towers film; despite the moving of Shelob’s lair to part 3, it does a very good job of providing plotlines that resolve (defending Helm’s Deep and Faramir resisting temptation) while still having the story ongoing at the end.

Another way of providing interest in a second part is to provide an ending revelation that recasts the story, as in DDAL08-02. Indeed, the “I am your father” moment in Empire Strikes Back changes the parameters of Luke’s story significantly. It’s not good to have every part 2 pull the rug out from players’ expectations, but it can be very effective.

Part 2 of a series? The players must accomplish or learn something relevant to the ongoing story that justifies the existence of a middle part!

Even if you think players are going to play all three parts of a series at a convention, you still need attention to the individual adventure structure. The rising and falling of action within each instalment provide a flow that results in a superior story. And, given that not everyone will play them all at once, it’s something worth considering when designing multi-part adventures.