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

jgsugden said:

I write my own for my own adventures to make sure I remember all the key facts to deliver.

A good set of text includes:

• Descriptions that are not subjective.
• Only describes involuntary feelings/reactions a PC might have, such as nausea at a horrible smell or squinting at a bright light, rather than things a PC would elect to do ... and never in a way that the feeling/reaction has a mechanical impact on the PCs.
• Italics for sections that should not be read unless they have adequate light.

I follow these rules and the text helps me. When I get adventures without the text I need to memorize a lot about each room to be able to deliver a description of it ... and that is a pretty big burden when the PCs might go anywhere in a large dungeon.

Click to expand...

Shardstone said:

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.

Click to expand...

Shardstone said:

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.

Click to expand...

Nokturnal said:

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.

Click to expand...

toucanbuzz said:

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).

Click to expand...

Quickleaf said:

I always love to help a fellow gamer, but my time for RPGs is extremely limited these days. Even my participation on the forum has dropped off to a sporadic post every now and then.

I'm not sure which publishing firm you represent? Doing editing of a sizeable playtest document gratis is beyond the scope of what I can offer, but feel free to DM me with what you're looking for.

Click to expand...

TaranTheWanderer said:

Make it short, give the major details such as entrances, smells and major enemies if that’s the centre of an encounter. Leave the minute details out unless you are describing details of NPCs.

I like it, especially when playing online, my dm will copy/paste it into the chat and let us read it which helps me to visualize it and lets me refer back to it.

At least if it’s there, you can change it if you don’t like it. Sometimes, without it, you accidentally tell people stuff only to find out it’s hidden or whatever.

Click to expand...

MarkB said:

Maybe for deluxe editions of the VTT versions of such adventures, they could have sound files of the read-aloud text recorded by a voice actor with a suitably epic voice. Players might even pay attention to the whole thing then.

Click to expand...

LordEntrails said:

My instinct is to always put the "moveable" parts last. And I think that's how I always write mine.

I think you are right, but I'm still hesitant to change. I have always put the dangerous stuff last. Because myself once I hear the dangerous stuff I'm figuring out what to do and ignore the rest.

Of course if the text is long you're going to lose the player's attention no matter what.

What do other think? Danger first or last? (Assuming a nice short paragraph.)

Click to expand...

Nokturnal said:

I see both points, but I think I lean towards moveable items and monsters last. Or what about have a super brief monster first box that focuses on the monster and gives some very minimal setting aspects that are critical to the potential combat, then another for after the combat with more details of the room? I know that may be overly complex, but I think it would more accurately reflect how a character woudl actually experience the encounter / space.

Click to expand...