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.
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.