Modules: Made to Read vs Made to Run?

[Lanefan]

I would say that is true... in that they usually are Adventurer's League modules and thus are your prototypical D&D-styled written adventures. But even though that might be true... I still have little to no faith than a person who tries to run an adventure "off-the-page" is actually going to be good, because it is always obvious when a person is actually having to spend time reading. And not only reading, but also trying to process what they have read. And time spent reading is time spent silently looking down at their papers trying to grasp just what it is they are looking at and making sense of it in a way they can then look up and try to then jump back into Narrator mode.

Even when I'm the one who wrote the module I'm still reading it as I run it; it's not like I memorize the whole thing (if I could I wouldn't have written it all out in the first place!), and the players are inevitably going to do things I didn't account for and thus I have to read the words in order to then extrapolate what comes of their unexpected actions.

 

[Reynard]

Even when I'm the one who wrote the module I'm still reading it as I run it; it's not like I memorize the whole thing (if I could I wouldn't have written it all out in the first place!), and the players are inevitably going to do things I didn't account for and thus I have to read the words in order to then extrapolate what comes of their unexpected actions.

I know everyone is different and to each their own, but the idea that one would write a module they are going to run for their group is wild to me.

 

[zakael19]

How do you do that without presenting the same information twice, though?

Duplication is wasted page space, and also runs the risk of errors creeping in where the info in, say, the long-form presentation contradicts the info in the short-form.

You don't present the long form background prose within the like keyed location / at-the-table content though. You do a hyperlink, page number reference, etc that brings you back to the longer stuff. Or you have a section of "stuff the PCs can research/learn" that's separate again.

It's funny, I own some of the most usable almost without ever reading modules (mainline OSE and similar content) and some of the most unusable made entirely to be read like a novel (Symbaroum's campaign). The latter literally has unkeyed maps, details you need to run locations and NPCs buried in paragraphs pages apart, tidbits of lore scattered throughout dozens of pages of prose. I spent hours distilling those into usable keys and short form blurbs.

 

[aramis erak]

Well the market leader is WotC, who seemingly have a suitable marketing budget to promote about three "big dumb campaign" type books a year, which then quickly get read and reviewed by influencer types who haven't actually tried to run them, make most their sales before many people have actually gotten far into them, and are probably profitable more as a driver of interest in the core books and other goods and services then as products in and of themselves.

Also module presentation is based on what the people creating it themselves have read and are used to. Tradition runs strong.

And of course even if the presentation of a module to the gamemaster is needlessly bizarre, belabored, and byzantine, the end user experience for the players can be awesome, which often leaves the gamemaster also feeling good about the experience of the module which so carelessly abused their time and attention.

But I personally have never really experienced modules that weren't a pain to run. The idea intrigues me...

I found Horde of the DQ and its sequel a good balance, save for the maps being hard to read. Same for Princes of the Apocalypse and Out of the Abyss, likewise, tho' clearly OotA was leaning a bit more towards reading. I had very few issues book to table with them. I skipped the rest.

The DDAL modules for those three seasons were pretty good, too, and purely to run. To the point that the lacks were stuff that prose would have made clear.

 

[Lanefan]

I know everyone is different and to each their own, but the idea that one would write a module they are going to run for their group is wild to me.

If I write it out now then a) it's easier to run because I'm not making it up on the fly, b) I've got it if I ever want to run it again for a different group, and c) I've got it if anyone else ever wants to run it.

One of these days the idea of "d) I can put it out there for public consumption" might also rear its ugly head.

 

[overgeeked]

How do you do that without presenting the same information twice, though?

Duplication is wasted page space, and also runs the risk of errors creeping in where the info in, say, the long-form presentation contradicts the info in the short-form.

Present it twice and have a good editor. Page count is irrelevant in digital forms. If you’re dealing with printed material, you can simply provide a digital download free to those who already purchased the print version. Simple problem, simple solution.

 

[Lanefan]

Present it twice and have a good editor. Page count is irrelevant in digital forms. If you’re dealing with printed material, you can simply provide a digital download free to those who already purchased the print version. Simple problem, simple solution.

If it's not on paper, it doesn't count. Paper first, then a digital version that's exactly the same.

And page count is highly relevant even in digital form: lower page count means less chaff to plow through, less scrolling or page-jumping, and-or less wasted space.

 

[overgeeked]

Even when I'm the one who wrote the module I'm still reading it as I run it; it's not like I memorize the whole thing (if I could I wouldn't have written it all out in the first place!), and the players are inevitably going to do things I didn't account for and thus I have to read the words in order to then extrapolate what comes of their unexpected actions.

This touches on another thing I’m finding a lot of in modules, overly wordy descriptions of motives and justifications, plots and schemes, etc. Give me a terse explanation of what the baddies are up to and why. Tell me what they’re going to do if the PCs do not intervene. And give me some insight to what they’d do when the PCs intervene. You know, like fronts in PbtA games. It’s wild how such a simple and useful idea was first presented 15 years ago and still isn’t embraced when it would be wildly more efficient and easy to use than what we’re traditionally presented with.

 

[overgeeked]

If it's not on paper, it doesn't count. Paper first, then a digital version that's exactly the same.

And page count is highly relevant even in digital form: lower page count means less chaff to plow through, less scrolling or page-jumping, and-or less wasted space.

Our priorities are dramatically different in this regard.

 

[zakael19]

You know, like fronts in PbtA games. It’s wild how such a simple and useful idea was first presented 15 years ago and still isn’t embraced when it would be wildly more efficient and easy to use than what we’re traditionally presented with.

Red Hand of Doom is basically a Front in D&D before AW even released. It’s a wordy in places and needs a little work but is so much better in overall format and usability then basically everything I’ve seen for 5e, while providing more meat then most 4e adventures.