Big-picture or detail-oriented

[RFisher]

I think I tend to be a big-picture person. I'm terrible at remembering details.

Note that I didn't say that details aren't important to me. They are. I just tend to gloss over them until I'm specifically focused on a specific detail.

I've found that I have less success running modules that have a lot of background detail to absorb & maticulously stated monsters. I tend to have more success with modules that give me a brief sketches for the background and NPC descriptions, & I improvize details as needed.

(This is even true of adventures I write myself! It took me a long time to realize that I needed to stop beating myself up for not spending enough time preparing & devising all the details & to embrace winging the details.)

I suspect people who are more detail-oriented have exactly the opposite experience.

Now, as with any generalization, this is going to be imperfect. But this might be one useful way of classifying modules & who a particular module might be a better fit for.

 

[Piratecat]

Sing it, brother.

I have less fun with fiddly detail-filled modules, no question about it. I tend to gravitate to cinematic and philosophy-based games, just to avoid the detail-work.

 

[blargney the second]

So adventure as theme + toolkit, rather than a script?

 

[Hussar]

I'm the opposite. I WANT a module that covers the details. I want the module to give me every bit of inforamatin it can. I don't buy modules so that I can spend the next fifteen hours of my free time filling in the blanks. I want a complete module so that if I choose to expand on it, I can, but, if I choose to run it as written, I can do that too.

Color me lazy.

 

[green slime]

I'm the opposite. I WANT a module that covers the details. I want the module to give me every bit of inforamatin it can. I don't buy modules so that I can spend the next fifteen hours of my free time filling in the blanks. I want a complete module so that if I choose to expand on it, I can, but, if I choose to run it as written, I can do that too.

Color me lazy.

That's just the thing. I don't spend 15 hours covering the details in a futile attempt to cover the blanks. Especially when it is extremely unlikely that detail is going to be utilised in the game. Modules containing that detail, I can't even be bothered to read.

 

[RFisher]

I'm the opposite. I WANT a module that covers the details.

Yes, this is exactly my point.

I don't buy modules so that I can spend the next fifteen hours of my free time filling in the blanks. [...] Color me lazy.

Well, as Green Slime said, I don't spend 15 hours filling in the blanks for such a module. I improvise the blanks if they come up. To me a module with lots of detail is something I don't want to take 15 hours reading. Color me lazy too!

The point is that many discussions here have well established that different people have different needs in modules & that a single style of module does not fit all DMs. But, what are useful labels to put on these things so that a publisher can describe the sort of DM a specific module would fit & so that DMs can figure out what modules are going to fit them.

I am wondering if this (big-picture vs. detail-oriented) is one such classification that is worth while? (& are there others?)

 

[Rothe]

Give me a module with details (as a fun and inspirational read) but don't make the adventure hang on them as I will rework the details to fit my setting. Even in the modules I love the most, monsters get changed, treasure gets changed, monster goals get changed to fit the setting. Too much integrated detail can make it harder for me to change things without rewriting the whole module, which I will do. Too bare-bones and I think why didn't I just draw the map myself.
Bottom line, don't make your adventure dependent on adding a whole new intelligent race with amazing abilities that requires me to rewrite my setting, if not unbalance it greatly if I'm to use your module as is.

 

[Byrons_Ghost]

Along with the question of whether or not to include a lot of details, I think there's going to be differences on what types of details do or do not need to be dictated out. Some people will want detailed maps & settings, but be fine with vague monster stats and NPC descriptions. Others might want very detailed descriptions of encounters, but done individually so that they can be dropped anywhere in a homebrew world. Each different type leaves out details, but the sprt of detail missing determines how the module is used.

For example, I've run far more O/AD&D modules for 3.0 than I have contemporary products. Usually those modules were vague to begin with, and switching systems meant that I really couldn't use the monster or NPC stats, either. I didn't mind, so long as the module was flavorful and inspirational enough to give me some ideas to work with. It was a simple matter to look at the monsters and items in the module and then go to the new books for the 3.0 equivalents.

So I think that labelling modules by how they're used by the DM, rather than just by level or theme, would be very helpful. I don't think it'll be a clean dichotomy like details vs. big picture, though. Really, I don't think we have the classifications yet to describe all the different ways people use modules, and what they get out of them.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

That's just the thing. I don't spend 15 hours covering the details in a futile attempt to cover the blanks. Especially when it is extremely unlikely that detail is going to be utilised in the game. Modules containing that detail, I can't even be bothered to read.

See, I disagree.

One of the things I liked about the 1e adventures is that not every room was meant to be explored. It was there if I needed it as a DM, but if the players walked on by, they walked on by.

 

[Hussar]

I'm not a tinkerer. I'm really not. I don't enjoy it. So, when I pick up a module, to me, the best module for me is one that I can read and run. That means that I need lots of stuff spelled out for me. If the innkeeper is running a brothel in the back room, put that in BIG BLACK LETTERS, so I don't miss it. Ok, maybe a bad example, but you get the idea.

Every encounter should have a purpose, even if that purpose is just something to make the players go, "buh?" I see modules as more or less completely discrete mini campaigns where everything in that module (or module series) is used in that module. Sure, if the creatures in the adventure are taking over the world, that might be a bit tricky to slap into my campaign, but, a cult of whatever trying to take over a town somewhere in the hills can be air dropped into most campaigns without worry.

Unless I'm running a game set in a specific campaign setting like Scarred Lands, I don't fuss the details too much.