I'd choose the third one. Breaking everything into bite-size and bullet-pointed chunks really makes it easy to process at a glance. Opening with a sentence of lighting and a sensory detail makes it pop better than the ones focusing solely on the statues, too.
Although the most well known TTRPG is literally called "DUNGEONS & dragons" (and I love D&D 5e), I honestly have a furious hate for any and all kinds of 'mazes'. Both in real life and in fictional works like TTRPG's. I easily get lost. I absolutely have no sense of direction, not even with a map on my smartphone. I have no desire for the mega-dungeon whatsoever; just give me the 5-room dungeon please.
3, it has enough detail for you to form your own narrative for the players (details about scene and contents), and parsed in bullet lists allows you to quickly determine what is important and not to be read to the players
Absolutely, #3. My sense as a GM is that I want the lighting information first, then the big features ("Six statues"). The details can come later, as the players start paying attention (or not) and looking at the statues.
Bonus points if obvious opposition is listed in obvious type, like the "Six statues" in boldface. My group has 30-plus-years of griping about DM text that runs on and on about details, before ending with "there's a giant red dragon about to breathe fire at you."
3. I'm attracted to the compactness of the others, but a) the light and dust details imply a lot about the space and help me describe and adjudicate it (but this is hard to assess in isolation: if monotonously similar details were given for every key, it would seem like a waste of space) ; b) It is the only one of the three that clearly gives the full count of six statues upfront; the others put me at risk of blurting out the five statues, and then having to add the sixth as an afterthought; c) the white space is welcome.
My preferences are skewed because the information and text is different, not just the presentation. In #1 and #2 I'd have thought there were 5 statues. Only in #3 are there plinths and. dust, but the dust is described before the statues which is the wrong order. Formatting in #3 helps but you've also made the text terse and less readable which isn't necessary.
Like the others, I prefer #3. One thing that made me dislike #1 was that I started reading it with the impression that this is something I would read aloud to the players, and then was surprised by the fifth sentence that suddenly mixed in game mechanics (with the force doors check). That surprised me and it's possible I would accidentally spoil that to the players or make an awkward stutter as I backpedal. I appreciate when descriptions make clear what information the players should know vs what I should keep back.
3 as welll for me - "bullets and bold" are key tools for me. Very roughly I'll use the number of bullets to estimate the number of turns (or time units) a party will spend somewhere, and if I forget to timekeep for a room, I can go back and calculate based on bullet points. The bold will help me improv my narrative, but also to modify my estimation for time in the room.
For example, the four bullets give me a baseline of four turns of action to anticipate or record later after I've forgotten to check them off as they occurred. The bolded material will quickly remind me to modify this estimate based on the party's religiosity. If they are all atheist hack and slashers, they'll probably spend two turns in the room and move on (unless hidden treasure is suspected) but if they are a party of clerics, they'll probably hold the Council of Trent in these chambers for a while.
I rely on bullets and bold so much that I've lost my fastball when faced with traditional narrative blurbs.
As others have said, this is the only entry that immediately makes it clear that there are six, and not five, statues. For me, the bullets also make it easier to quickly parse the entry.
The introduction about the lighting and dust should only be there if it’s in contrast to other portions of the dungeon, especially the adjacent ones. But if whole sections are unlit and dusty then that should be stated only at section-level.
Good Day, James. .. (sorry to post here. same reason as others)
Number 1
(a) it is easier to read, and (b) formatting of the othes is distracting for all the reasons others voiced preference for them.
This holds true throughout various phases of my preparing and running a scenario, in multiple use cases; for example: I am reading to (1) spark ideas for my own scenario; (2) gain an overview of the entire scenario/adventure/campaign prior to play; (3) running the scenario at the table.
Especially when reading for inspiration (1), I want to decide where to place my attention, depending upon what elements I might want to use, and how I might want to use them. This might change from reading to reading.
When preparing to run a scenario (2), my practice is to thoroughly read everything, and make notes adapting the scenario to the particular game session/group, so again, I want to choose what is important and where to place my attention. I may change and/or re-use the published information in a variety of ways over time, and I almost never run a scene the way another person envisions it.
When at the table (3) I use my own notes, written during the above phases. I never run a scene directly out of a publication.
In all these cases, the Number 2 and Number 3 formatting inhibits my use - probably to the degree I would not engage with the published material to any signficant degree (certainly not to purchase it). It is too close to 'rail roading'.
To share a few examples of formats that I particularly like:
On the more 'old school' side: (UK1) 'Beyond the Crystal Cave', and Dave Hargrave's adventures such as 'Caliban' (particularly as anthologised in 'Vaults of the Weaver' by Emperor's Choice) .. notwithstanding the very different production values.
On the more recent side: I really like how Free League formatted 'Vaesen: Seasons of Mystery', as well as most of the Symbaroum adventures. While not as 'sandbox' as I usually prefer, the books do a great job of balancing all three use cases .. and the formatting makes them a pleasure to read simply for enjoyment (as I often do with in bed with a cuppa).
Thanks for asking, James .. and hope some of that helps.
I'd choose the third one. Breaking everything into bite-size and bullet-pointed chunks really makes it easy to process at a glance. Opening with a sentence of lighting and a sensory detail makes it pop better than the ones focusing solely on the statues, too.
ReplyDeleteI agree.
DeleteAlthough the most well known TTRPG is literally called "DUNGEONS & dragons" (and I love D&D 5e), I honestly have a furious hate for any and all kinds of 'mazes'. Both in real life and in fictional works like TTRPG's. I easily get lost. I absolutely have no sense of direction, not even with a map on my smartphone. I have no desire for the mega-dungeon whatsoever; just give me the 5-room dungeon please.
ReplyDeletePardon, this is a Wendy's.
DeleteWaitwut ? It's a "Wendy's" ? Sorry, I'm in the wrong place here, then.
DeleteI had the - obviously wrong impression, as it now turns out - that we were talking about a location in a maze.
Sorry for the noise.
Same here: Third presentation is the most helpful.
ReplyDeleteAsked and answered, in the title of the OP: Three!
ReplyDelete3, it has enough detail for you to form your own narrative for the players (details about scene and contents), and parsed in bullet lists allows you to quickly determine what is important and not to be read to the players
ReplyDeleteAnd this ^ sums up my reasons why
DeleteAbsolutely, #3. My sense as a GM is that I want the lighting information first, then the big features ("Six statues"). The details can come later, as the players start paying attention (or not) and looking at the statues.
ReplyDeleteBonus points if obvious opposition is listed in obvious type, like the "Six statues" in boldface. My group has 30-plus-years of griping about DM text that runs on and on about details, before ending with "there's a giant red dragon about to breathe fire at you."
3. I'm attracted to the compactness of the others, but a) the light and dust details imply a lot about the space and help me describe and adjudicate it (but this is hard to assess in isolation: if monotonously similar details were given for every key, it would seem like a waste of space) ; b) It is the only one of the three that clearly gives the full count of six statues upfront; the others put me at risk of blurting out the five statues, and then having to add the sixth as an afterthought; c) the white space is welcome.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't leave a comment at the other place.
ReplyDeleteMy preferences are skewed because the information and text is different, not just the presentation. In #1 and #2 I'd have thought there were 5 statues. Only in #3 are there plinths and. dust, but the dust is described before the statues which is the wrong order. Formatting in #3 helps but you've also made the text terse and less readable which isn't necessary.
For actual play, #3, by a country mile.
ReplyDeleteLike the others, I prefer #3. One thing that made me dislike #1 was that I started reading it with the impression that this is something I would read aloud to the players, and then was surprised by the fifth sentence that suddenly mixed in game mechanics (with the force doors check). That surprised me and it's possible I would accidentally spoil that to the players or make an awkward stutter as I backpedal. I appreciate when descriptions make clear what information the players should know vs what I should keep back.
ReplyDeleteMy substack comment didn't take:
ReplyDelete3 as welll for me - "bullets and bold" are key tools for me. Very roughly I'll use the number of bullets to estimate the number of turns (or time units) a party will spend somewhere, and if I forget to timekeep for a room, I can go back and calculate based on bullet points. The bold will help me improv my narrative, but also to modify my estimation for time in the room.
For example, the four bullets give me a baseline of four turns of action to anticipate or record later after I've forgotten to check them off as they occurred. The bolded material will quickly remind me to modify this estimate based on the party's religiosity. If they are all atheist hack and slashers, they'll probably spend two turns in the room and move on (unless hidden treasure is suspected) but if they are a party of clerics, they'll probably hold the Council of Trent in these chambers for a while.
I rely on bullets and bold so much that I've lost my fastball when faced with traditional narrative blurbs.
1.
ReplyDelete3.
ReplyDeleteAs others have said, this is the only entry that immediately makes it clear that there are six, and not five, statues. For me, the bullets also make it easier to quickly parse the entry.
The introduction about the lighting and dust should only be there if it’s in contrast to other portions of the dungeon, especially the adjacent ones. But if whole sections are unlit and dusty then that should be stated only at section-level.
Good Day, James. .. (sorry to post here. same reason as others)
ReplyDeleteNumber 1
(a) it is easier to read, and (b) formatting of the othes is distracting for all the reasons others voiced preference for them.
This holds true throughout various phases of my preparing and running a scenario, in multiple use cases; for example: I am reading to (1) spark ideas for my own scenario; (2) gain an overview of the entire scenario/adventure/campaign prior to play; (3) running the scenario at the table.
Especially when reading for inspiration (1), I want to decide where to place my attention, depending upon what elements I might want to use, and how I might want to use them. This might change from reading to reading.
When preparing to run a scenario (2), my practice is to thoroughly read everything, and make notes adapting the scenario to the particular game session/group, so again, I want to choose what is important and where to place my attention. I may change and/or re-use the published information in a variety of ways over time, and I almost never run a scene the way another person envisions it.
When at the table (3) I use my own notes, written during the above phases. I never run a scene directly out of a publication.
In all these cases, the Number 2 and Number 3 formatting inhibits my use - probably to the degree I would not engage with the published material to any signficant degree (certainly not to purchase it). It is too close to 'rail roading'.
To share a few examples of formats that I particularly like:
On the more 'old school' side: (UK1) 'Beyond the Crystal Cave', and Dave Hargrave's adventures such as 'Caliban' (particularly as anthologised in 'Vaults of the Weaver' by Emperor's Choice) .. notwithstanding the very different production values.
On the more recent side: I really like how Free League formatted 'Vaesen: Seasons of Mystery', as well as most of the Symbaroum adventures. While not as 'sandbox' as I usually prefer, the books do a great job of balancing all three use cases .. and the formatting makes them a pleasure to read simply for enjoyment (as I often do with in bed with a cuppa).
Thanks for asking, James .. and hope some of that helps.
Cheerio, Matthew.
3. I like bullet points and important info highlighted...much easier to scan and find things quickly.
ReplyDeleteFirst. Simple, more efficient use of space, less distracting. Thank you!
ReplyDelete2 is ok, but I really love 3's bullet points. It's just easier for me to scan that way. 3 for me.
ReplyDelete