D&D General Read aloud text in modules: What are folks opinions about read aloud content?

[LordEntrails]

I don't think you are wrong, but I also think what @Dausuul is saying makes sense as well.

Absolutely, and I think my response came across more rigid and pseudo-authoritative than I intended.

I also think if you are playing TotM or with battlemat makes a big difference, too.

Yes, and when I publish something I include a detailed map. The map tells you what furniture is in a room, where the doors are, trees, streams, hills, etc so for my descriptions all that stuff is not needed. But, even with TotM I think all those details should be elsewhere, not in the boxed text. But ready for the DM to add and describe when needed.

 

[Quickleaf]

Boxed text has many points of potential failure that lead to that "checking out" @Morrus and other folks mentioned. For example, boxed text can...

• Assume mode of travel / directionality of PC travel that may be false (e.g. "to your left is a golden archway surrounding impenetrable darkness, to your right is a barred wooden door"...wait we used passwall to come in through the floor!)
• Boxed text may focus attention on something players don't care about (e.g. description of an armoire which is a concealed door...when really that is "stage 2" info that should be offered only once a player expresses interest in the armoire).
• It may overstay its welcome (e.g. insisting each room receive same level of description when that's not necessary or just being a wall of text)
• It may leave critical information til the end ("....and there are also 3 ogres") as a sort of add-on that's not integrated into room description, or worse comes after meandering text and players' attention is flagging so they miss important detail or miss mention of monsters.

I think boxed text can work wonders – but that requires effectively prioritizing information delivered, needs of the GM as intermediary between adventure & players, an understanding of clues/foreshadowing, and walking that line between "just the facts" & artistic emotionally evocative description without becoming boring or unclear.

That takes effort: understanding the encounter & iteration on the writing.

Because of thin profit margins on most published adventures, this is why in the OSR you often see "bullet point" descriptions of rooms. It's harder to mess up bullet points intended for the GM to put into their own words. The one drawback is that this offloads some burden onto the GM's shoulders to figure out how to communicate certain things (info priority & clues/foreshadowing in particular), without giving the GM guidance/teaching on how to do that.

 

[Scott Christian]

Much of the new stuff seems very utilitarian. It is missing mood and trying to just "explain" the setting rather than paint the setting. That said, if they are there, I will use them - paint or no paint.

 

[Nokturnal]

It is helpful for DMs to kick-off an adventure, scene or even a new room in a dungeon.

Many DMs are good enough to do this with their own words but others are terrible. Anything that helps is a good thing. Getting the length right is the key (and that applies also to a DM's own words): long enough to contain hooks or encourage action, but also short enough to be retained by the players in one read. I would suggest to try stay within a quarter page for the first read-aloud that serves as an intro for the whole module, or for a chapter in a longer story, and otherwise within 2-4 sentences for the read-aloud of a new location.

One advantage of playing online is I sometimes post in the chat what I’ve just read aloud, players can and do then copy paste it into their campaign notes so there’s no stress about remembering and increases immersion when referring back.

 

[Nokturnal]

Boxed text has many points of potential failure that lead to that "checking out" @Morrus and other folks mentioned. For example, boxed text can...

• Assume mode of travel / directionality of PC travel that may be false (e.g. "to your left is a golden archway surrounding impenetrable darkness, to your right is a barred wooden door"...wait we used passwall to come in through the floor!)
• Boxed text may focus attention on something players don't care about (e.g. description of an armoire which is a concealed door...when really that is "stage 2" info that should be offered only once a player expresses interest in the armoire).
• It may overstay its welcome (e.g. insisting each room receive same level of description when that's not necessary or just being a wall of text)
• It may leave critical information til the end ("....and there are also 3 ogres") as a sort of add-on that's not integrated into room description, or worse comes after meandering text and players' attention is flagging so they miss important detail or miss mention of monsters.

I think boxed text can work wonders – but that requires effectively prioritizing information delivered, needs of the GM as intermediary between adventure & players, an understanding of clues/foreshadowing, and walking that line between "just the facts" & artistic emotionally evocative description without becoming boring or unclear.

That takes effort: understanding the encounter & iteration on the writing.

Because of thin profit margins on most published adventures, this is why in the OSR you often see "bullet point" descriptions of rooms. It's harder to mess up bullet points intended for the GM to put into their own words. The one drawback is that this offloads some burden onto the GM's shoulders to figure out how to communicate certain things (info priority & clues/foreshadowing in particular), without giving the GM guidance/teaching on how to do that.

All really great insight. Would you ever be interested in looking at our playtest content? Folks with a keen eye can be a huge resource for us when running through edits.

 

[Nokturnal]

From the Shadows is in the bad half for me too. I agree that doing terrible things to the characters to force them into the plot is bad. It is up there with the doppleganger and flesh golem ones for screwing over PCs by removing their agency and doing things to the characters.

Night of the Living Dead was in the good half for me. I liked the plot and elements and atmosphere and it ran great for me and my group. Touch of Death and the ghost hound one were up there as well that ran great. Investigations and fights and cool stories to actively discover and interact with.

I feel that our read aloud sections in our Lands of the Ravaged Sun modules steer clear of railroading or taking away player agency. I’m going to give them all a good read again though with this specifically in mind.

 

[Nokturnal]

I always disliked being told what I felt or did. I prefer just being told what I see. That has always been my biggest issue with read aloud text.

I agree. We mainly focus on hitting major info items but wrap them in immersive prose that ideally hits at least three senses.

 

[Nokturnal]

Read-aloud text is nice to have, but it's even nicer if the important parts of it get called out somehow (e.g. underlining). That makes it easier for those who want to describe things in their own words to make sure they don't miss anything vital ("What do you mean there's a pentagram on the floor?")

Speaking of which, I saw an adventure for East Texas University which did something great I've never seen before: at the end of each section of the adventure they called out the stuff in that section that's important for the rest of the plot. That way, the GM knows to make sure those things actually happen, or if they don't that they need to adjust things downstream.

I really like the idea of bolding the critical info. The readaloud text us already italicized and in a highlighted box but this will also help. Cheers for that.

 

[Nokturnal]

It's always a mistake. Canned speeches are boring.

Write descriptions or keywords that the GM can read and riff off when they verbally describe the scene, sure. But let the GM verbalise that organically so they can adapt to what the PCs just did, how the players react, etc.

I’m not sure I agree. Some DMs really struggle with this so skip it or keep it really short of fumble through it poorly. It can really kill a tables enjoyment as it can get worse the more the dm struggles and stresses about it. If it’s not needed it can always be skipped. And I’d hazard a guess that some dms think they are rocking this aspect unaware that they could be doing much better. The text can inspire both dm and player, even if not read word for word.

 

[Nokturnal]

Depends on how it's done. Short room descriptions are useful, but leave details in the non-boxed text. It should be long enough to give players ideas of what actions they want to take, but short enough to be spoken in only seconds. I personally hate having monsters in the box text, however, since they may not still be there by the time the party arrives.

Boxed text for events is a double edged sword. It might be necessary to convey exactly what happens, but it has to be for an event so short that the players can't interrupt. Nothing annoys players more than a cut-scene, where they're just an audience. Describing how the bbeg is pulled down into the abyss by demons is cool... forcing the players to listen to the bbeg monologue is not.

Very valid point