Boxed Text

[Gnarl45]

I personally don't like reading boxed texts but they never bothered me.

I recently found out that they have a use, even for people who don't like reading them. The boxed texts separate the descriptions from the gameplay elements, which makes navigating through a book or PDF easier. You know just by looking at a page exactly where the description is and where the DM-only parts are.

As a DM, there's nothing I hate more than having to read an entire page to find the information I'm looking for

 

[pemerton]

I don't use very much boxed text, mostly because when I use a module I use bits and pieces of it that are interesting to me, not the whole thing unadulterated.

Mostly when describing a situation I just tell the players what their PCs can see/hear. I tend to focus on the stuff that I think might be interesting to them. Details can be worked out later.

For instance, in a recent Burning Wheel session the main PC was taken by his cleric friend to a cathedral, where a more powerful cleric was going to heal the PC's mummy rot. I didn't describe the cathedral in much more detail than "a cathedral, in basilica rather than gothic style". And made it clear that the meeting was off in a side-chapel.

When some questions arose about number and nature of pews, number of candles, distance from the main doors, etc, we worked that out as it came up (I think mostly be consensus; it's possible we also rolled a die or two, but I don't think so).

 

[Weird Dave]

I love boxed text, as long as it is flavorful without being too verbose. As an adventure designer, I try to keep the boxed text to an interesting view of the scene and generally then only for static locations. Dynamic scenes with lots of moving pieces, or anything with dialogue really, should be described as simply to the GM as possible so that they can convey the information to the players at the appropriate time. Boring boxed texts are a symptom of a boring scene, and there are plenty of examples of that over the years. If there's going to be boxed text there's something important I want the players to pick up on, but I'll never take offense to a GM that re-words it in their own style.

I love prepping adventures, for both organized play (Adventurers League) and home games, but things don't "cement" in my mind until I run them, so I find boxed texts incredibly useful. However, if I've run an adventure multiple times (for example, "Quest for the Bronzebottom Bock" at PAX West 2016 a few months ago), I eventually find the groove and can usually run it without it sounding too much like I'm reading a wall of text.

 

[Jester David]

I need descriptions of dungeon rooms.
Those descriptions can be in the text of the encounter or in the read aloud/ grey boxed text. But if it's in the latter, I can choose to read it aloud for my players... or not. If it's mixed in with the rest of the description, it's harder to read aloud as I need to parse text and details on the fly.

If the read aloud becomes more flowery and longer than a straight description, then it's problematic.

 

[LordEntrails]

I will argue that IMO in a PUBLISHED adventure, boxed text (or something that serves the same purpose) is REQUIRED.

Several reasons;
1) For DM's that don't like it, no harm done.
2) For DM's that like or expect it, not having it will harm them.
3) For new DM's, they need an example of what to do and say.

As [MENTION=6787695]Gnarl45[/MENTION] says, it also helps from a visual and organizational cue. Though another method could be used, this is the one that we (the RPG community) have standardized on for over 30 years. To change it now without a compelling need will only cause unnecessary confusion.

 

[pemerton]

I will argue that IMO in a PUBLISHED adventure, boxed text (or something that serves the same purpose) is REQUIRED.

Several reasons;
1) For DM's that don't like it, no harm done.
2) For DM's that like or expect it, not having it will harm them.
3) For new DM's, they need an example of what to do and say.

I don't agree at all.

If the published adventure consists of certain locations and/or people and/or events, then those things need to be described somewhere. But unless the whole thing is on a railroad, there is no pre-ordained way in which the players (via their PCs) will come to encounter those locations, people and/or events.

The last module I remember using is bits of Queen of the Demonweb Pits - mostly, its description of the Demonweb. As I posted at the time, it is not easy to find stuff in that module. But it doesn't need boxed test, just clear descriptions (perhaps using bullet points).

 

[LordEntrails]

I don't agree at all.

If the published adventure consists of certain locations and/or people and/or events, then those things need to be described somewhere. But unless the whole thing is on a railroad, there is no pre-ordained way in which the players (via their PCs) will come to encounter those locations, people and/or events.

The last module I remember using is bits of Queen of the Demonweb Pits - mostly, its description of the Demonweb. As I posted at the time, it is not easy to find stuff in that module. But it doesn't need boxed test, just clear descriptions (perhaps using bullet points).

It's fine that you don't agree. But I don't see any reason you invalidate my arguments.

QoDP just shows that a badly organized module is a badly organized module. I don't see how it's relevant.

I don't see boxed text as requiring a railroad. It's an EXAMPLE not a requirement. Even sandbox adventures benefit from a generic description of the lord's manor, the speech that a ship's captain might say, or the look and smell of the cesspit where the murder weapon was discarded.

Back to my points;
1) How does boxed text (well done and used appropriately) cause harm?
2) How does not having boxed text help DM's that like to have box text help them?
3) How does not having boxed text help new DM's understand the types of things they should say or how to set up encounters or describe places?

 

[pemerton]

How does boxed text (well done and used appropriately) cause harm?

I don't know how much weight your qualifiers are meant to carry (I mean, there's an argument that if it causes harm then, ipso facto, it was not done well or used appropriately).

But putting that to one side: boxed text can do harm by suggesting that there is one canonical way in which the game should proceed, and in which the story element in question should be brought into the game.

It assumes a fixedness to the trajectory and content of the shared fiction that is (in my view) at odds with the things I value in RPGing.

One of my favourite published adventures I've run in the past few years is Robin Laws's The Demon of the Red Grove (in his Hero Wars Narrator's Book - I adapted it to epic tier 4e, set in the Feywild, and making the nobility Eladrin). Here is a sample couple of sentences from that adventure: "The heroes find a demon: weakened, near insane, and bound to the Red Grove by powerful magic . . . When any hero reaches the tree a voice cries out, 'Go away!'"

When I ran this adventure, and the PCs entered the grove and came near to the tree, I told them that a voice cries out "Go away!" and then we proceeded to the mechanical resolution of the situation. It wasn't hard.

How does not having boxed text help DM's that like to have box text help them?

For those who like boxed text, and finds it helps them, not having it is probably not a help. But that doesn't mean that it is (as you posted) REQUIRED. Because those are not the only GMs out there.

How does not having boxed text help new DM's understand the types of things they should say or how to set up encounters or describe places?

The way you describe things is to describe them. If you want examples, therre are bucketloads of books, plays, written accounts of films, etc, out there.

In the session of AD&D that I ran on the weekend, I was rolling a dungeon using Appendix A of Gygax's DMG. When the PCs came to an octagonal room, I describe it to them - "You come to an octagonal room." Because that is a rather oddly shaped room, I also ad-libbed something in - "It has runes and sigils inscribed on its wall." When the cleric cast Know History, I ad-libbed some more - "They are symbols of Chaos", and I went on to download some backstory that I made up (loosely drawing on the idea that 8 crossed arrows is a symbol of Chaos in Elric stories - or at least that's how I remember it, and the player of the cleric seemd to get the allusion).

Boxed text isn't needed to learn these skills.

 

[LordEntrails]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION],
For you, obviously, boxed text is not necessary. And, as you say it is even contrary to what you value. So why not leave it at that?

You are obviously set in your views and appear to be adamant in finding some reason to object to anything that opposes them.

But, to try a slightly different approach...

How about the value of having a product relatively self-contained? Sure their are lots of examples, blogs and references that give other ways of doing things, but why would you put together a product that assumes someone has access to and knowledge of such?

Again, you don't address any segment except yourself. What about the 12 year old who has never played before and his/her aunt/uncle bought them the PHB, DMG and an adventure and said, "Hey, I know you'll love this.."

One could also argue that the harm done by implying a single way to present something is better than the harm done by excluding everyone without the experience, knowledge or ability to not benefit from boxed text.

As for Required... yea, for published adventure, IMO, it pretty much is close to it. Sure, there are exceptions. Just like I could come up with an exception that a Title is not required. But, it kind of is...

 

[pemerton]

You are obviously set in your views and appear to be adamant in finding some reason to object to anything that opposes them.

Hey, I'm not the person who said that boxed test is "REQUIRED" in a published adventure, and compared that requirement to the need for a title. That was you. I'm explaining why I don't agree. I'm not sure why that makes me adamant. It just means I don't agree with your statement of requirements for published adventures. I even gave an example - The Demon of the Red Grove by Robin Laws (hardly an inexperienced or incompetent publisher of RPG materials). I'm going to give another example below.

For you, obviously, boxed text is not necessary. And, as you say it is even contrary to what you value. So why not leave it at that?

Where else do you think I have taken it?

How about the value of having a product relatively self-contained? Sure their are lots of examples, blogs and references that give other ways of doing things, but why would you put together a product that assumes someone has access to and knowledge of such?

I don't follow.

I'm going to post a short extract from Death Frost Doom, a LotFP adventure which doesn't have boxed text. This is a published adventure, and I believe that it is fairly well regarded among the old-school crowd.

The Old Oak Hanging Tree
A few trees still stand in and around the graveyard, although all are long dead. This petrified tree is the largest of them, and stands as a mocking caricature of the life that a normal tree would represent. It was used to hang prisoners, traitors, and certain sacrifices, and the broken knot used to secure rope to the thickest branch is still there, although the rest of the rope has long since been hacked away.

Over the centuries, having soaked up the energy of so much painful death, it is filled with the essence of suffering and woe. The tree is self-aware but is unable to move or communicate, and it desperately hates those that move. The only way to discover that something is not right with the tree is if it is damaged, at which point it will bleed human blood. But if it could animate…​

Despite the lack of boxed text, I don't see how this is not self-contained. I don't see why anyone would need to read a blog to be able to describe that tree to a group of players.

What about the 12 year old who has never played before and his/her aunt/uncle bought them the PHB, DMG and an adventure and said, "Hey, I know you'll love this.."

I assume they would do what I did when I was given the Moldvay Basic set in similar circumstances, namely, read the GMing advice and example of play and use the latter as a model in light of the former. Thus, the Basic PDF for 5e gives us the following (p 1):

One player . . . takes on the role of the Dungeon Master (DM), the game’s lead storyteller and referee. The DM creates adventures for the characters, who navigate its hazards and decide which paths to explore. The DM might describe the entrance to Castle Ravenloft, and the players decide what they want their adventurers to do. Will they walk across the dangerously weathered drawbridge? Tie themselves together with rope to minimize the chance that someone will fall if the drawbridge gives way? Or cast a spell to carry them over the chasm?​

And also this (on the first page as well):

Dungeon Master (DM): After passing through the craggy peaks, the road takes a sudden turn to the east and Castle Ravenloft towers before you. Crumbling towers of stone keep a silent watch over the approach. They look like abandoned guardhouses. Beyond these, a wide chasm gapes, disappearing into the deep fog below. A lowered drawbridge spans the chasm, leading to an arched entrance to the castle courtyard. The chains of the drawbridge creak in the wind, their rust-eaten iron straining with the weight. From atop the high strong walls, stone gargoyles stare at you from hollow sockets and grin hideously. A rotting wooden portcullis, green with growth, hangs in the entry tunnel. Beyond this, the main doors of Castle Ravenloft stand open, a rich warm light spilling into the courtyard.

Phillip (playing Gareth): I want to look at the gargoyles. I have a feeling they’re not just statues.

Amy (playing Riva): The drawbridge looks precarious? I want to see how sturdy it is. Do I think we can cross it, or is it going to collapse under our weight?​

Personally I think that GM's narration is a bit overwrought, but I think that might be a minority view. In any event, I think that makes it pretty clear what is involved in describing the situation the characters find themselves in.

One could also argue that the harm done by implying a single way to present something is better than the harm done by excluding everyone without the experience, knowledge or ability to not benefit from boxed text.

If you go on a holiday, or a day trip, or even out for the evening, and you see something interesting, do you tell your friends about it? And if so, do you prepare your boxed text in advance, or just relate what you saw off the top of your head?

I'm bringing to mind, now, the sight of Minas Tirith in the 3rd LotR film. A tall city. of white stone, abutting the end of a range of mountains. I can describe that to someone without boxed text. That's all a GM has to do.

It's not any sort of special skill. (Beyond, in general, requireing some facility with words. But that's a general prerequisite for GMing.)