Goodman Games: Our Efforts Have Been Mischaracterized

Artamo said:

Based on the way that I’ve approached running older modules in the past, I usually create notes based on each room that ends up approximating the style that OSE uses, but I still like having the original. There is a particular voice that gets lost when it’s pared down to just its utmost functional parts. IMO, this is akin to stripping out all of the artwork of a TTRPG - you don’t technically need that artwork but the overall product is more enjoyable for me having it.

If I had my druthers, published adventures would have the narrative text followed by a TL;DR bullet points section.

Click to expand...

So like this, or something like it?

Micah Sweet said:

I am addressing @Fenris-77 , not "everyone", and they seem to be focusing on usability as a game as the more important metric, which I am refuting.

Click to expand...

Your disagreement in inevitable, but refutation is neither what you've accomplished or even begun. You'd need to make an actual argument to refute mine, and you have not even yet begun to do so.

mamba said:

I mean, you are disagreeing with it, refuting feels a bit strong

Click to expand...

Fair enough. Disagreeing then.

Fenris-77 said:

So like this, or something like it? View attachment 427216

Your disagreement in inevitable, but refutation is neither what you've accomplished or even begun. You'd need to make an actual argument to refute mine, and you have not even yet begun to do so.

Click to expand...

I don't see your argument as any better than mine, but you do you.

Micah Sweet said:

I don't see your argument as any better than mine, but you do you.

Click to expand...

Lovely. You do you.

Fenris-77 said:

So like this, or something like it? View attachment 427216

Your disagreement in inevitable, but refutation is neither what you've accomplished or even begun. You'd need to make an actual argument to refute mine, and you have not even yet begun to do so.

Click to expand...

Hmm, sorta - it’s on the right track but still feels like I have to read each point rather than scan the points quickly. I was thinking more along the lines of the narrative text at the top (like this has), bullet points for key features of importance (I think they’re using more narrative here in the individual points than necessary and not really calling out what PCs interact with), and more importantly what are mechanics that I need to know (Stats for combat, DCs for common checks like Search or Investigation or whatever the mechanic requires.) If it’s more OSR and not driven by mechanics, maybe something like this:

• Key Items
  • Town Records
    • Importance: Evidence of cult’s plans.
    • Located: Scattered throughout the archives
    • How to find: Interact with clerks - only they know where everything is. (Include mechanics if system specific).

What adventure is that for, btw?

Bae'zel said:

There's definitely some middle ground between "endless walls of text" vs. "math textbook keywords".

Imagine if DCC had room descriptions broken up like this:

1. Big wall of text, which the fans seem to prefer
2. Some words of said text are bolded for emphasis
3. after the big wall of text, the bolded items are given presence under standard sub-headings like: monsters, treasure, secrets, traps etc...

There you go, everyone wins, the prose is there for the people who want that and the structured, cognitive-friendly, easy to scan content is there for the people who want that too.

It can be done. As I mentuioned, some modules from Lamentations of the Flame Princess, as OSR as it gets, managed to accomplish this relatively well.

Click to expand...

That comment about math textbooks got me thinking. There are a lot of really good academic texts that have reputations for being great reference texts but that are generally considered too terse for someone trying to learn from. I think it's a mistake to only consider rpg modules as "usable" for their qualities as a reference text. Sometimes those big blocks of text provide the best information about what the situation in the module actually is, especially with regards to nuanced faction/npc motivations.

I feel like a module is "usable" if it's given me a good enough understanding of its content to improvise with confidence, without needing to reference.

myrkulyte said:

That comment about math textbooks got me thinking. There are a lot of really good academic texts that have reputations for being great reference texts but that are generally considered too terse for someone trying to learn from. I think it's a mistake to only consider rpg modules as "usable" for their qualities as a reference text. Sometimes those big blocks of text provide the best information about what the situation in the module actually is, especially with regards to nuanced faction/npc motivations.

I feel like a module is "usable" if it's given me a good enough understanding of its content to improvise with confidence, without needing to reference.

Click to expand...

So back in the day, in the IT world we had these O’Reilly tech books that would have stuff like Programming Perl and then a separate book called Perl at a Glance. This was back in the day before the Internet was as searchable as it became. You’d read the first book as you had time to really grasp the concept, but you’d rely on the second book when you just needed to remember the syntax and options.

Even with textbooks, students had to take notes (well, some did at least) to boil it down. And that’s really what it comes down to with modules. Yes, reading them can be fun, but usability is important and some people really don’t want to bother with the reading, preferring to go off the cuff using notes. It’s all an exercise in finding the happy medium. It gets more complicated if/when a publisher decides to emulate a style just for nostalgia’s sake.

Artamo said:

Even with textbooks, students had to take notes (well, some did at least) to boil it down. And that’s really what it comes down to with modules. Yes, reading them can be fun, but usability is important and some people really don’t want to bother with the reading, preferring to go off the cuff using notes. It’s all an exercise in finding the happy medium. It gets more complicated if/when a publisher decides to emulate a style just for nostalgia’s sake.

Click to expand...

I think it just depends what you're trying to do and what style you adopt. This example:

Fenris-77 said:

So like this, or something like it?

Click to expand...

Is in my opinion fantastic for the style Ben likes and for being easy to use at the table with little preparation. It has a great layout, is easy to read, and doesn't overwhelm with information.

That said, for other styles I might find it lacking information. What are the clerks routines and what do they respond to? What is the layout of the East Wing--can the players reach the clerks without alerting the town watch?

That stuff may not come up in the adventure and I think a good GM has plenty to improvise from. But sometimes I would like a more extensive writeup and to write my own notes.

The Firebird said:

I think it just depends what you're trying to do and what style you adopt. This example:


Is in my opinion fantastic for the style Ben likes and for being easy to use at the table with little preparation. It has a great layout, is easy to read, and doesn't overwhelm with information.

That said, for other styles I might find it lacking information. What are the clerks routines and what do they respond to? What is the layout of the East Wing--can the players reach the clerks without alerting the town watch?

That stuff may not come up in the adventure and I think a good GM has plenty to improvise from. But sometimes I would like a more extensive writeup and to write my own notes.

Click to expand...

I will probably always have my own notes for this reason. I just don’t think I can escape it - I’m always going to think of something specific that pertains only to my running of the game and no one else.

I wonder if there’s value in providing Markdown files with the notes sections, and then you can go in and edit them on a computer for yourself while keeping what the authors provided (or making changes). Maybe publishers experimented with that?

OSE and Necrotic Gnome are what I've seen specifically called out as "better" layout. I've looked at a few so as to not limit my opinion to one example.

Most recently, I read Halls of the Blood King. It was a good adventure to look at to see how more complex ideas (ex: the library bookshelves and escalator-like stairs) are conveyed by the format.

I have a few questions for those who are more familiar with the product line:
•Is the purple and red scheme the normal house style? (Color coding is helpful, but it's a bit harsh on the eyes if I look at it too long.)
•Do OSE adventures ever use handouts or play aids? Just curious.
•How do you feel about having things that would normally be in an index moved to the front of the book? I have mixed feelings on it.
•What are the 5 saves listed for the monsters?

Misc thoughts:
•I feel that I would still need to read through the OSE format and make notes for myself. The notes would just be different information than the notes I use now. For example, reading location #1 Biting Gate would be fine after I was already familiar with the material, but I had to read it and then take a moment to mentally re-order some of the information before I would have a description to share with the players.
•Oddly, even though the OSE layout appears designed to be shorter/quicker, there are places where the layout wastes a lot of space, and it might be easier to just tell me what's going on with a small paragraph.
•I like including the "Adventure Areas" section with page numbers along with the table of contents. That is something that is very helpful.
•Something that I did not realize I would miss until it wasn't there was the DCC map style and artistic flair. Having previously been in the military and also having some experience with construction jobs, I can (and do) greatly appreciate the clarity of a floorplan. On the other hand, having some sketches to show different perspectives and give a touch of isometric flair is something I enjoy about DCC books. Some of the blank unused space in OSE could feature that and be improved by doing so.

For shorter modules (like most of what I have for DCC,) I still heavily prefer the current DCC layout.
For longer things, like Dark Tower and the other thicker adventure path books, incorporating elements to break up the information and increase usability would be helpful to using the product during actual play.