D&D 5E D&DNext WotC Adventures

[GX.Sigma]

Good question. I am a big fan of the terse OSR writing style, but I actually prefer the D&DNext format here, because it's designed to follow the natural order of play, which is: how do I get into this room, then a basic description of what's in it, then "what do you do?", then here's what happens when the PCs interact with things, separated by a bullet point for each thing so you can deal with them in any order more easily. It could be a bit more concise but it's not bad.

I do appreciate the utility of this format, but for me it's outweighed by my desire to have everything on the same page. Life's too short to have to flip back and forth just to know what's in each room. Also, it's appalling that WotC still publishes adventures with read aloud text, but that's a bit of a tangent.

 

[keterys]

Also, it's appalling that WotC still publishes adventures with read aloud text, but that's a bit of a tangent.

Read-aloud text vastly improved results at many tables, in my experience with testing having other people run my adventures.

It definitely had to be used carefully, but basically I'd get a ton more errors and confusion from encounters that lacked any (all in bullet points, or inferred from the environment) than I would from encounters that had a short amount of box text.

The most amusing bit for me, when it came to editing adventures, was a husband + wife team who would submit encounters where the husband had no box text and the wife had _far too much_ box text, so I'd have to work extra to get to a happier middle ground.

I wish I could say otherwise, mind you, that DMs were far too skilled and organized to ever need such crutches, but, umm, yeah.

 

[Hussar]

Good question. I am a big fan of the terse OSR writing style, but I actually prefer the D&DNext format here, because it's designed to follow the natural order of play, which is: how do I get into this room, then a basic description of what's in it, then "what do you do?", then here's what happens when the PCs interact with things, separated by a bullet point for each thing so you can deal with them in any order more easily. It could be a bit more concise but it's not bad. I don't like the in-line DCs for things though. I thought DMs were expected to make up DCs on the fly in Next? Who cares if it's DC 10 or DC 12 to break open the door. This is false precision. It's important to avoid false precision and nose-leading so that off-the-page play and improv play flow together naturally. Some DMs will read the part about the boarded up door and say "OK do you want to try breaking in or taking off the boards one by one?" which is bad.

I also think secret doors are a vestigial concept that doesn't work well anymore and should not be used in Next. They should generally be replaced with puzzle doors, or at least hidden in a way that they can be found just by poking around, like a door behind a tapestry.

I'm not sure if that's a problem though. If the player says he wants to break the door down, he might be envisioning pulling the boards off, but, because he doesn't elaborate, the DM might presume that he's busting through. At some point, it might be a good idea to elucidate the options - "You want to break the door down. How are you going to do that?" "I dunno, uhhh, what are my options here?" "Well, you can just try to bust through, or you can take a bit more time and pry off the boards".

Is that a problem?

 

[Libramarian]

I'm not sure I get your criticism about the pre-set DCs of the doors. To me this is like seeing that a room has stone walls and saying, "Why are they deciding the walls are stone? Why are they trying to make that decision for me? They should let the DM decide if the walls are stone, or wood, or whatever." Or seeing that a room is described as a kitchen and saying, "What if I want the room to be a closet? I thought the DMs were expected to design the campaign?"

To me, if I bought the pre-designed campaign, I expect and want it to be described fully, with what kinds of doors are there, be they sturdy doors or weaker doors. I know I can change things if I want. But it would mean unnecessary and perhaps unwanted work if all they said was "there is a door in the room" without saying if it's a standard door or a sturdy door or an iron door, or whatever.

I think the doors should be described as sturdy or made of oak, or locked or boarded up, but then the DM should come up with DCs for whatever the PCs want to do. Coming up with DCs in the middle of play is part of their job in Next and they'll be doing it a lot anyway, so why preset certain DCs? The DM guide in the playtest stuff says "it is up to you to set most DCs". So let them do that. It's not going to ruin the adventure if one DM says 12 and one says 10. I don't think it's the right purpose for published adventures to offer a different way of running a game for DMs who can't or don't want to run a "normal" game. That creates a dependency on published adventures in new DMs who start with them and makes them less useful for DMs who mix published and homebrew stuff or want to run the adventure with a different system or edition of D&D.

I do appreciate the utility of this format, but for me it's outweighed by my desire to have everything on the same page. Life's too short to have to flip back and forth just to know what's in each room. Also, it's appalling that WotC still publishes adventures with read aloud text, but that's a bit of a tangent.

Yeah read-aloud text is the worst.

I'm not sure if that's a problem though. If the player says he wants to break the door down, he might be envisioning pulling the boards off, but, because he doesn't elaborate, the DM might presume that he's busting through. At some point, it might be a good idea to elucidate the options - "You want to break the door down. How are you going to do that?" "I dunno, uhhh, what are my options here?" "Well, you can just try to bust through, or you can take a bit more time and pry off the boards".

Is that a problem?

I think if that did happen, it would only happen once, because after the DM narrates the result of the roll and the player realizes the miscommunication, they would learn to be more clear about what they're doing in the future. I think as long as it's made clear throughout the game that the process for setting DCs is based on task resolution, not conflict resolution, DMs and players will naturally work out whether the PC is prying off the boards or breaking straight through. This process will become confused if the game implies that the DM might set the DC based on the PC's level, or the door's place in the narrative.

 

[Mistwell]

Also, it's appalling that WotC still publishes adventures with read aloud text, but that's a bit of a tangent.

I love read-aloud text, and I think plenty of others do as well. I get it's not your thing, but why call it appalling to support something a lot of people like, when it doesn't harm you in anyway in doing it the way you prefer to do it?

I also think secret doors are a vestigial concept that doesn't work well anymore and should not be used in Next.

Now there is something I find appalling. Get rid of secret doors because they don't "work well anymore"? What the heck are you talking about - they work great, and are a defining characteristic of the game!

 

[GX.Sigma]

I love read-aloud text, and I think plenty of others do as well. I get it's not your thing, but why call it appalling to support something a lot of people like, when it doesn't harm you in anyway in doing it the way you prefer to do it?

It hurts me because all the basic details about what are in the room are described only in the read-aloud text. That basically forces me to read all of it, at least mentally, while I'm running the adventure. I have to read the box text, imagine what that scene looks like, then describe it to the players. That is more steps than necessary, and it slows down the game.

Why do you like read-aloud text?

 

[Iosue]

It hurts me because all the basic details about what are in the room are described only in the read-aloud text. That basically forces me to read all of it, at least mentally, while I'm running the adventure. I have to read the box text, imagine what that scene looks like, then describe it to the players. That is more steps than necessary, and it slows down the game.

How is that different from no box text?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Why do you like read-aloud text?

I like read aloud text because it requires very little preparation. Without it my game sounds like this:

Me: "You go through the door, in the next room you see....umm....a bed in the east corner. There is also a secret door....uhh...nevermind, I'm not supposed to read that part. There's no secret door there. At any rate, there's table in the middle of the room. On it is a ring of regeneration and a...wait a second, I guess you guys don't know that is a ring of regeneration without identifying it. Umm, so you see a ring and a sword."

PC 1: "Alright, I pick up the sword and the ring."

PC 2: "I search the bed. Is anything hidden underneath it."

PC 3: "I start searching for secret doors!"

Me: (scanning the rest of the room description to make sure I didn't miss anything important) Umm, one second.

Me: (finally getting to the end of the room description) Also, there is a Troll in the room that attacks the first player to enter the room.


On the other hand, when I have boxed text, I can read it without having to read it in advance and censor myself. It had already picked out the most important parts of the room and put it in an easy to manage package.

 

[Blackbrrd]

The problem with boxed text is that it gets read when it's not appropriate. For instance if the room is pitch black, the troll already ate the Thief, then got eaten, and so on.

 

[keterys]

The problem with boxed text is that it gets read when it's not appropriate. For instance if the room is pitch black, the troll already ate the Thief, then got eaten, and so on.

Well, which is it - the DM is skilled enough to cope with creating descriptions on the fly or can't?

Cause the DM _needs_ the box text if they can't, but will very occasionally and rarely screw things up. And if they can cope on the fly, then they paraphrase the box text appropriately and cope.