There is a big difference between creating
a dungeon or adventure for an established
campaign and doing the same thing for
tournament play. In your own campaign
world, you know the strengths and weaknesses
of your players, and your players
know the setting and the NPCs. If it takes
five weeks for your party to get the answer
to the sphinx's riddle, what difference does <gynosphinx>
it make?

On the other hand, none of this can be
taken for granted in tournament play. The
players are generally strangers, time is
limited, and conditions are rarely ideal. It is
easy to underestimate the importance of the
above facts, but they must be taken into
account if the tournament is to be successful
and enjoyable.

I have played in tournaments in which
the introduction was so complex it took
forty minutes of explanation before we
could start playing; in tournaments in
which the goal was known only to the GM;
and, in tournaments in which either the
dungeon or the party was so large that after
three or four hours, we had covered only
about 20% of the adventure. While some of
this can be blamed on the incompetence of
the GMs and the players, the greatest fault
usually lies with the design of the tournament
adventure itself.

This article will deal with the most important
aspects of a successful tournament
dungeon: size, level of complexity, plots,
and goals. But please note that the prime
considerations for tournament design are
the needs and wishes of the convention
organizers. Any restrictions they place upon
size, allotted time, themes, and so on take
precedence over any advice given here or
even your own desires, for the simple reason
that the organizers know more about
what is appropriate for their convention
than anyone, else does.

Size
There are 4 aspects to consider in
terms of the size of the adventure: How
many rounds, how many sessions, how
many encounter areas, and how many
players?

One of the 1st considerations for the
aspiring tournament master is whether to
run a single-round adventure or a multipleround
adventure. Convention organizers
can be very opinionated on this subject, so
the decision may be made for you.

A single-round adventure consists of just
that: a single round, one tournament that is
run a number of times throughout the
convention. A final may be added to a
single-round adventure, in which the best
players from all the groups compete for the
title of best overall player. The biggest
advantages of a single-round adventure are
its flexibility (in terms of timing, number of
sessions, and level of complexity) and its
efficient use of manpower (it uses more
players and fewer GMs), which is much
appreciated at smaller conventions. Its
disadvantages lie in its narrower scope and
its reduced competition (that is, groups and
individuals compete against each other only
once and at a single level of difficulty).

A multiple-round adventure usually
consists of a large initial round, one or more
playoff rounds, and a final round, each level
providing a progressively greater level of
challenge. The advantages of a multipleround
event are its heightened competition,
its high level of complexity, and its extremely
broad scope (some of the AD&D®
open events are practically epic!).
<make compleat list of AD&D open events>

Its disadvantages are that it is relatively
inflexible in terms of the number of sessions
(a minimum of four to eight initial sessions
is needed to provide adequate competition),
it requires large numbers of gamemasters of
equal ability, and it runs generally fewer
and fewer new players through as the convention
progresses. It should be noted,
however, that this last is not really a problem
if the event is prestigious enough to
attract a large initial crowd.

Having decided upon the number of
rounds you will run, you next have to decide
how many sessions to run. Convention
organizers may also decide this, but if it's
left up to you, keep one thing in mind: The
more people you run through the tournament,
the happier the organizers will be!

The limitations placed on you include
available manpower, the length of the sessions,
and the minimum number of initial
sessions if your event is multiple-round.
Give yourself time between sessions to score
and reorganize (and maybe even to eat or
sleep), and don't get too frazzled.

Next, you must decide how much time
you are going to allot to each session. The
average running time is usually between
three and five hours. When you want to
consider filling that time, it is important to
remember all the elements that go into your
tournament adventure. It's not like the
usual game in which you just sit down and
play. At a gaming convention, people have
to find the right room or table (and so does
the GM!). You have to read out the introduction
and hand around the character
sheets. Players and characters have to introduce
themselves, read over and choose their
spells, make their plans, and so on. If this
time isn?t taken into account in the adventure
design, this time is lost and panic may
ensue.

If it is taken into account, however, the
time spent allows the GM to size up the
players and allows the players to work as
best they can. Given the chance, good
fighters will organize and form an intelligent
strategy, good spell-casters will choose
sensible spells, and players in general will
exchange important information (such as
whose character is carrying the rope and
who has the oil flasks). A gamemaster who
feels she must keep the players off balance is
showing a disappointing lack of confidence
in her tournament design.

I like to allow a five-minute grace period
for preregistered players to get to the table.
After that, I go through the list of alternates.
If they?re not there, I grab a passerby
to fill in (the convention may have specific
rules for how to fill vacancies; if not, there?s
always someone waiting to play something).
Once everyone is seated, you must announce
any special rules you have, give an
indication of your scoring system, and hand
out character sheets. You can safely assume
that all this will take from ten to fifteen
minutes.

You then present your introduction to the
adventure, which you have timed. You can
clearly read about 200 words per minute,
equivalent to one typed page. A five-page
introduction usually contains all the requisite
information, so let?s estimate it takes
5 minutes. We are now twenty minutes
into the adventure, and the PCs 
haven't set foot in the dungeon!

The next thing the players will want to do
is get organized. They will take anywhere
from twenty to forty minutes to do this,
whether you give them the time or not. I
have found that if you say to the players, ?I
am giving you 20 minutes to get organized,
choose your spells, and so on," they
will be more focused and will likely accomplish
more. It has also been my experience
that given this time for organization (or 
forced to take it, as the case may be), parties 
generally do better in the adventure. 

We have now accounted for between onethird
and 1/5 of our allotted time, and
the rest of the tournament stretches out
before us in unlimited reams of time. Or
does it?

The most common mistake made by both
experienced and inexperienced GMs is
trying to cram too many rooms, monsters,
tricks, and traps into the next four hours.
Having designed and run tournaments at a
regional convention for several years, I have
discovered that a good rule of thumb is that
an average party can go through four average
encounters in an hour. That means a
party of four to six characters, encountering
monsters of less than equal number or
strength, meleeing them for approximately
five to twelve minutes (real time), and
spending no more than five to twelve minutes
between encounters. It is fair to assume
that in a tournament adventure, some or all
of your encounters will be tougher than
average, so don't expect a party of six to
whiz through twenty rooms full of monsters
in two and a half hours.

Keep in mind that the party will spend
part of its time wandering around, looking
for encounters, mapping, searching for
clues, and checking for secret doors. Some
GMs like to put in-time-wasters like levers,
rooms full of silver pieces, and talking
statues, just to test the party?s ability to stay
on track and to have a little fun. Remember
also that it is very difficult to estimate how
long it will take a party to solve riddles and
puzzles.

The final and most important thing on
which to base your time estimate is, of
course, the playtest. The playtest is the only
way one can really get a sense of the overall
soundness of the adventure. I cannot put
too much emphasis on the importance of a
playtest, yet it is amazing to me how many
tournament designers don?t even bother.
The initial playtest is simply a run-through
of the first draft of the adventure. It is important
that you have a group of experienced
players to playtest and that they know
it is a playtest.

The idea is that this group will do their
best to get through the adventure successfully,
but they won't want their money back
if it turns out to be a disaster. Playtesting
will give you an idea of the timing and will
also show up the worst of the rough spots,
inconsistencies and impossible situations
that are hard to spot on paper.

It is possible that the playtest group will
go faster and be more successful than tournament
players would, especially if it is a
group of players familiar with your gamemastering
style. Allow the playtesters to
complete the adventure, regardless of how
long it takes, so that you have at least some
idea of the full potential running time.

If things go wrong with your tournament,
be prepared to rewrite and retest. The more
you playtest, the better off you are.

Timing is more important in a multiple-round
adventures or in a single-round adventure
with a final than it is in an ordinary
single-round adventure. In a single-round
adventure, there is no particular need to
finish, so it shouldn't matter if your adventure
runs a little over the time allotted. This
applies regardless of the scoring system
used, as the amount of the tournament the
players complete (compared to other
groups) is at least one indicator of their skill
level. As I see it, in a single-round tournament,
an average party should complete
from 75% to 85% of the adventure, and a
good group should complete from 85% to
99% -- but only an outstanding group will
actually complete the entire adventure
within the time allotted.

In a multiple-round adventure, however,
it is necessary that groups finish the adventure
in each round before being able to
move on to the successive rounds. The
tournament should be designed so that all
who play reasonably well will complete each
adventure. Those individuals or groups
with the best score then move on to the next
round, having had all possible opportunities
for gathering information and treasure in
their previous adventure.

Finally, in terms of the size of the party
itself, there are two things to consider. One
is the limitations of the GM (i.e., her tolerance
for controlling large groups of people
without becoming unhinged), and the other
is the wishes of the convention organizer.
The most convenient range of players is
from four to six. With less than four, they
don't really have the manpower (what if a
character dies?). It also poses a problem for
a convention organizer who has to find
places for as many people as he can during
the convention. A five-player game run six
times entertains nearly twice as many people
as a three-player game in the same
amount of time with the same amount of
space. With more than six players, you
have trouble keeping the party focused.
Less experienced players will not be able
compete for your attention with the ?pros,?
and the players' attention will waver and
wander.

Plot, goals, and complexity
Tournament adventures are usually based
on a structure not unlike the story plot.
Single-round adventures are like short
stories, and multiple-round adventures are
like novels. A background history of the
setting and a physical layout exist, which
may or may not be revealed in advance.
There are a few principle protagonists (the
players) whose characters are more or less
developed. These characters are given or
discover a goal that they must achieve in a
limited amount of time. This adventure is
usually the most important event in that
character's life.

I cannot presume to say what is or is not
a good idea for a tournament adventure,
but I have noticed that the most entertaining
dungeons in which I've played have
certain elements in common. The plots are
interesting and unique, the goals are either
clearly stated or deducible by logical means,
and their level of complexity is both challenging
and consistant.

There are 3 levels of complexity to
consider when designing a tournament
adventure: simplex, complex, and multiplex.
Simplex adventures are straightforward
in their goals and design, and are
ideal for short time slots and inexperienced
to mid-level players. They are short on
puzzles and long on tough monsters and
physical obstacles. That is not to confuse
simplex with easy -- ask anyone who's had
to kill a lich how easy it is.

Simplex scenarios are more suited to
single-round tournaments. It is possible to
imagine a multiple-round tournament with
a group of simplex scenarios, but these
adventures would barely be connected. Any
thread which connects 1 adventure to the
another raises the level of the tournment to
complex by its very nature.

A typical simplex scenario might be the
following: An evil magic-user has kidnapped
the heir to the throne, polymorphed
him into a hood ornament, and hidden him
deep in a tower guarded by orcs and surrounded
by an acid-filled moat. The characters
are escorted by the king?s guard to the
tower and told to rescue the prince or not
bother coming out. Once inside, they battle
monsters galore, including the evil magicuser,
find the hood ornament who is to be
their ruler, and return him to the king.

It is possible to change the level of the
above scenario from simplex to complex by
adding detail or a subplot. One way to add
detail is to construct personalities for the
characters and giving characters individual
goals to pursue. This should be done with
care, but it is useful for getting players to
role-play (which in turn keeps them focused
on the adventure). It also gives a character
who otherwise has less to do in a given part
of the adventure a more balanced role in
play. 

Please be assured here that I am not
advocating that travesty of role-playing, the
"pre-fab" PC. There is nothing more alienating
to a player than being handed a character
sheet that says: ?You hate all the elven
characters in the party, go berserk on any
roll of 3, and can?t use your longsword
unless the cleric chants ?snark, snark, snark?
at the beginning of each round."

Nor do I agree with a policy of setting
your party members against one another or
against the common goal of the party. What
I am talking about is simply a brief characterization
or background history of the
character, like this:

?You, Addy Daz, are a gnomish thief
with a penchant for the ladies, in particular
the Princess of the Gnomes, Sweet Louise.
In order to win her hand, you have volunteered
to come on this adventure. Your own
personal goal is to come out of this as a hero
-- a live hero. It doesn?t really matter to
you if you really are heroic, just so long as
everyone thinks you are or is willing to lie
on your behalf."

My husband and I used this characterization
in our 1984 Cangames tournament.
Suddenly, we had all these little gnomish
thieves trying to out-macho all the fighters
without actually endangering their lives.

Character goals can be relatively minor,
such as the above example, or they can be
subplots in themselves, such as finding
special magic items rumored to be in the 
tower, or finding and killing a particular 
monster. Other subplots might require that
the evil magic-user be captured alive or that
the heir must be returned to human form
before midnight. In other words, by adding
complications that preclude the use of brute
force in all situations, by adding puzzles
that challenge the party?s intellect as well as
their common sense, and by giving the
characters motivations apart from the common
goal, you raise the level of complexity
considerably. Complex scenarios are ideal
for average to good players and for either
single-round or for multiple-round adventures,
but don?t try to run one in less than
three hours.

Multiplex scenarios are the most challenging
and also the most difficult to design
and run. In a multiplex scenario, there is,
in addition to the stated goal, a second
(hidden) goal or plot. For instance, perhaps
the party has been hired as mercenaries by
the king, and the members don?t know him
well. Isn?t it then possible that it is the king
himself who is evil, and the magic-user
merely a powerful but good enemy of his?
What if the hood ornament is actually a
polymorphed djinn held in bond by the evil
king, and the magic-user is working to free
him?

The existence of such hidden plots can
only be discovered by deductive logic (e.g.,
why does the so-called evil magic-user have
a pseudo-dragon for a familiar?). This
requires that the players have intimate
knowledge of the rules of the game or of a
particular movie or book setting, if the
scenario is based on such material.

You must be careful, especially since you
can?t choose your players, not to make the
mystery too impenetrable. The players
should get enough clues by the time they
are halfway through the adventure to know
that all is not what it seems, especially if it
will radically change their actions. It then
follows that you must have some alternative
goals planned for when they figure it all
out.

The multiple-round adventure is ideally
suited to multiplexity. Here, the clues to the
hidden plot can be expanded upon from
initial round to final and not stuffed into a
single round of play. The GM can insert red
herrings to her heart's delight, with each
adventure existing as a complex part of a
multiplex whole.

Obviously, this level of play calls for good
to outstanding players and requires a fair
amount of time. If the players are not really
up to the challenge, don?t be afraid to give
them a little help (although you can?t then
ethically consider them for prizes) and allow
them to have fun with it. If you?ve really
constructed a masterpiece but it is just too
difficult for all but the best, be sure to make
that very clear in the program book.

I would like to make a note here about
illogical or arbitrary goals. They are patently
unfair for the simple reason that the
players can't read the designer?s mind. If
the hidden goal can?t be deduced from the
clues given, or if it is nonsensical (such as
avoiding all encounters), then players will
be hard pressed to find anything but frustration
in the adventure.

Another "unfair" design fault is to have
the whole adventure hinge on a single correct
use of a single spell, especially if it is an
unconventional use. I personally prefer to
allow spell-casters to choose their own spells
from a limited list (even clerics can be limited
by the will of the gods!). If there is a
spell they will need, then I give it to them
with a scroll. Good magic-users will take
lots of useful knock, read magic, and levitate
spells, as well as their personal favorites.
Good clerics will stock up on cure light
wounds and so on.

Finally, don?t forget that someone (probably
you) will have to run this adventure a
number of times. If it has been so overdesigned
that there is only one way to solve
every problem, you will get very bored very
quickly. If the options are left open, the
creativity of the players will make each
running fresh and fun.

Editor’s note
If you?re interested in putting this advice
in to practice, you can apply to run a tournament
at the GEN CON® 19 Convention
in August. Anyone who hasn?t already
received a judge?s information packet and
would like to submit an application can get
one by writing to the GEN CON staff at
P.O. Box 756, Lake Geneva WI 53147.