Modules: Made to Read vs Made to Run?

[Bill Zebub]

To me this seems disrespectful to the author(s) of said book, making a point of avoiding reading it but nonetheless trying to get the information another way, but that's just my opinion.

To be clear, I'm talking about the article in HBR by the same author.

What happens is that somebody writes an article, the business world goes all abuzz, and the author thinks (or is told) "Hey, if that could be stretched into a hardcover book it would make a lot of money." But all that "stretching" doesn't really add anything I want to read.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And I might recommend some for the artwork, but that still has nothing to do with the point I was making about reading for the sheer enjoyment of delightful/brilliant prose.

There are many types of pleasure one can get from reading a book. Enjoying the writing is one. Interest in the content, use as a reference on a subject of interest, and art appreciation are a few others.

 

[Bill Zebub]

There are many types of pleasure one can get from reading a book. Enjoying the writing is one. Interest in the content, use as a reference on a subject of interest, and art appreciation are a few others.

100%

And my personal opinion is that if I'm there for the content, the reference, and the art, but not the writing itself....I'd rather have highly structured content instead of prose.

 

[Lanefan]

Of course. To me that's a referee buying a module. Even if they're in training.

Yeah. That's also one of the other big reasons I don't generally use modules.

Oh, I use them, but not always. I just got done running (most of) H2 Bloodstone Mines after a string of homebrew adventures, and the current one is another homebrew. I've also got U1 Secret of Saltmarsh* half-run, awaiting resumption if-when the current party/parties reach a logical conclusion or major break point.

* - somewhat amazingly, none of us have run or played through this one that I know of.

 

[Lanefan]

And my personal opinion is that if I'm there for the content, the reference, and the art, but not the writing itself....I'd rather have highly structured content instead of prose.

In an adventure module I'm only after content and reference. If the writing is good enough (by which I mean both readable enough and concise enough) to support that, and the editing is accurate, let's rock.

I can live without art in a module except for the rare cases where something really has to be depicted in order to be properly explained.

 

[Reynard]

And I might recommend some for the artwork, but that still has nothing to do with the point I was making about reading for the sheer enjoyment of delightful/brilliant prose.

Was someone making that argument?

 

[LordEntrails]

Though I'm sure their will be no consensus, I would appreciate people's views on a new template I put together for an investigative module. Don't know if I would ever publish it, but for being able to run this as well as being able to inspire some of that joy for just reading adventure ideas I would like people's opinions on the format.

Thread 'Constructive Criticism on an Investigative Sci-Fi Module Format'

Today at 2:26 AM

Modules: Made to Read vs Made to Run? has really gotten me curious about how I organize my modules. As such, the next adventure in my FrontierSpace campaign I'm putting together I've decided to try a new format. I've also rarely done an investigative module (and never to what I would think is satisfactorily) and so I've tried a new format and would like your feedback. By no means is it at the level of being publishable, but it's also probably more detailed that I would use if I was only setting up play for my own campaign.

You are welcome to comment on the content itself, but what...

• LordEntrails
• Replies: 0
• Forum: *TTRPGs General

• 

 

[Bill Zebub]

Was someone making that argument?

It was the argument I was making, to which you responded, so I was clarifying that I was just talking about the absence of RPG supplements I would recommend to a non-gamer purely for the experience of enjoying the prose. You responded that you might recommend some for other reasons. Which seemed like a non sequitur.

Or was I missing something?

 

[DEFCON 1]

being easy to prep definitely is a feature. Even the walls of text are not explicitly trying to make that difficult for a reason

I would suggest that "easy to prep" is not the same as "little to no prep". The former is about success rate. The latter is about effort. All kinds of module designs could be easy for a DM to prepare for their game... but at least the DM is actually doing the work preparing to run their game in the first place. It's the DMs that want to do little to no prep whatsoever that are in my opinion doing their players a disservice (which if their players are fine with, so be it.)

If you have to run a game every week without having any time to actually work out your plans for the game... that's fine. I won't fault you for that. It is what it is. But if the DM just doesn't want to do work for their game and will just wing it because they can or because they just can't be bothered... I don't feel that is something to be applauded. It can be accepted. It can be understood. It could be just the situation the parties find themselves in. But to think that's what we should be striving for? I'll never believe that.

 

[zakael19]

It's the DMs that want to do little to no prep whatsoever that are in my opinion doing their players a disservice (which if their players are fine with, so be it.)

Seriously. Have you read through any of the modules some of us have pointed out in this thread? When I ran Winter's Daughter for my 5e group, the entirety of prep was uploading the maps to the VTT and lightly reworking the backstory and a couple of names to fit the setting I was using. The entire module I ran direct from the book, no prep required.

Same thing when I ran in OSE/Dolmenwood proper. 3 sessions of quality interactive dungeon crawling, no prep beyond digital logistics.