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

I find boxed text to be invaluable, but so, so, much of it is just WAY too long and often rather obtuse. I tend to make a joke of it when I'm runing games.

I remember reading a suggestion somewhere that boxed text shouldn't be more than two sentences, and should focus on what a character can physically sense when entering the room (what they see, feel, hear, etc). Any monsters or creatures in the room should get a mention too. The larger deeper details should be in the rest of the section, so a GM can provide or phrase it on their own depending on what the characters are doing.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I love read aloud text in my adventures, and I much prefer my adventures to have it. I appreciate good writing and, if it's not good, I can still catch the vision and make it good myself. I really hate adventures that have very plain descriptors or that have a box of simple keyterms that aren't evocative. There are good examples of these techniques, but usually I just prefer readaloud text a lot.
 




I personally dislike the cardinal directions because the party may not know the cardinal direction. Old adventures tried very hard to confuse map makers and try and get the party lost, so using cardinal directions messes with that idea.

Personally I prefer vague descriptions when dealing with relative locations. "Off to the side" and "nearby" are typically adequate, unless the exact location is necessary for a puzzle, trick, or trap. In those cases, a handout is preferred.
To me that's exactly the problem: "off to the side" when coming in one door might be "across the room" when coming in another or "against one wall" if coming up through a trap door in the floor. Trying to adjust these things on the fly is a bloody nuisance.

And IME it's rare the PCs don't know which way is north. If there's been a confusion effect or teleport trap then I'll just assign (or get the players to assign) an arbitrary "north" for description and mapping purposes only - the characters might also do this in the fiction - which they can adjust if-when they find out which way real north is. Once an arbitrary north is set I'll just flip my DM's map such that the new "north" is at the top, and on we go.
 

Disclaimer: I'm biased because I'm helping out on the project. That said... I lean to Bryce Lynch's "Ten Foot Pole" criteria for adventures and MEGO ("my eyes glazed over") flavor text. There's a 2005 WOTC article (archived in criteria comments, Dave Noonan & Jesse Decker) that discusses going incognito and watching MEGO in action over four days, at table after table:

"...If you're the DM, you get two sentences. Period. Beyond that, your players are stacking dice, talking to each other, or staring off into space....I saw otherwise engaging DMs read through boxed text, then get frustrated because they wound up repeating and paraphrasing all the information in it anyway - often in the middle of the action." Their conclusion was that conversation was better than narration for boxed text:
  • "At its heart, a D&D game is a conversation." Narrated boxes of text don't follow that format.
  • DMs who didn't used boxed text had more engagement. Short descriptor, players ask questions as DM draws on grid map.
    • Lesser factor: convention halls are noisy, but boxed text is where DMs lost folks' concentration.
    • Lesser factor: DMs with box text are reading it "cold," not having written it in their style nor practiced how it sounds.
Solution? "Ditch the boxed text and use your own words for the initial description of the room."

Did this change D&D into "bullet-point" descriptors of rooms like some popular non-D&D modules? Nope, but 2-3 short sentences (impact the senses, contain a relevant clue perhaps) then looking at players is a good format: Two great, 15-foot-high oak doors loom before you. Reinforced with bands of black iron, they defy anyone eager to sunder them. Carved into their dark surface is an enormous and angry All-Seeing Eye. (Sons of Gruumsh adventure).
 

I like the idea of two versions: a capsule description that is bare minimum, and a more in-depth text for color and depth (if you enjoy writing such things). Individual DMs can decide what to use.

Not sure about putting it in the appendix, though. Might require too much flipping back and forth.
 

I prefer it. Box text makes it so much easier. You can always modify it or self describe. It just gives you an idea.

I know one thing my players hate about box text is room descriptions. The author will describe the minutia in a room but never mention any monsters or at the very least, put that in last. They would rather have a basic description of a scene or room, then the monsters, and any relevant minor details after a fight or encounter.
Yeah, the room's occupants being at the end of the description is always jarring - you're already deciding "well, okay, first I'll check for any papers on the desk, then I'll examine the fireplace, then maybe check behind the tapestries" when the DM wraps up with "oh, and there are twelve orcs and an ogre, they don't look pleased to see you."
 

Text boxes actually turned me off to running modules back in the TSR days. I've softened my stance over the years, but I can't stand overwrought text. Just give me the details that I need to give the players.
 

Remove ads

Top