Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Libramarian" data-source="post: 6277442" data-attributes="member: 6688858">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.</blockquote>