Modules: Made to Read vs Made to Run?

[Reynard]

Off-topic, but a recent trend I've seen that greatly annoys me is adventurers that use 3rd party maps (often Dyson Logos) but the map doesn't really "fit" the adventure as written.

Do you mean stylistically, or actual layout of the map version description?

 

[BruceWright]

Off-topic, but a recent trend I've seen that greatly annoys me is adventurers that use 3rd party maps (often Dyson Logos) but the map doesn't really "fit" the adventure as written.

cough Borderlands Quest: Goblin Trouble cough

 

[BruceWright]

Do you mean stylistically, or actual layout of the map version description?

actual layout. Directly conflicting with the text of the adventure as written. Borderlands Quest: Goblin Trouble, an official adventure published and given for free for the "Day of Play" /Free RPG Day by WotC, uses a Dyson map from the DMG that directly contradicts the adventure descriptions.

My speculation is that it was written and submitted by the writer with a sketched map, and the intention that someone at Wizards would then draw a fully-rendered map for it. And then the decision was made that that would cost money for a free adventure, and so they picked and reused a Dyson map. But then nobody edited the adventure design to line it up with that either.

 

[TheSword]

I’ve been looking at a lot of modules lately and something quickly became glaringly obvious.

There are two broad categories of modules: those meant to be read and those meant to be run.

Now, of course, those meant to be read are also eventually meant to be run by some fraction of buyers, but the priority is making the module a pleasure to read first and foremost. Large walls of text that flow well together. But, the amount of reading, highlighting, note taking, re-reading, rewriting, etc you’d need to do to make those modules even barely functional to run at the table is astronomical. At a guess, most referees complaining about vast amounts of prep are running modules and having to spend an inordinate amount of time and energy beating these kinds of modules into shape.

Then there are those meant to be run. Modules that do everything they can to make running them at the table as easy as possible. Page layout and design, information packaging, information structure, information design, lots of bullet points, succinct writing, effective use two-page spreads, repeating maps or fragments, bold important bits, etc. These are the kinds of modules you can run right from the book without having to pour hours of work into beforehand. At present, these kinds of easy-to-run modules are mostly restricted to the OSR/NSR scenes.

Why most modules still use page after page of giant walls of text you have to repeatedly pick through to actually find information is beyond me. Apparently there's a large enough audience of people who buy modules just to read that most publishers just cater to that crowd instead of the referees actually running them. Surely the people actually running the things are doing far more to promote these games than the people who're just buying and reading them.

I'm curious as to why? Why are these easy-to-run modules effectively absent from the broader hobby?

I also want to dig into the details of the easy-to-run modules, specifically the presentation. Making important information easier to find on the page. Making the module easier to use at the table.

All that jazz. What do you got?

Any examples of recent adventures that are easy to read but hard to run?

I see people talking about the opposite but can you share some examples of modules that don’t fulfill that for you?

 

[Piperken]

...I also want to dig into the details of the easy-to-run modules, specifically the presentation. Making important information easier to find on the page. Making the module easier to use at the table.

All that jazz. What do you got?

While I favor published modules and adventures that keep an eye to presentation and information design in mind, I feel like there is benefit when modules use a more prose/pleasure-to-read approach for some parts. Sometimes that can when you have factions or organizations that the party potentially becomes involved with. Not being constrained by extreme space limits aids with allowing those parts to breathe.

For some tables whose sessions are focused on just one or two scenes with heavy improv for a couple of hours, this can be perfect. The tablerunner sees who is involved and what sides they're on.

Quality of writing matters as well, no matter what form it takes; I will happily glomp to something if it's great writing, inspires me and comes in a dry, two-column format with no art, versus a slick, graphic design that is shallow or not made with care.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Do you mean stylistically, or actual layout of the map version description?

Maybe not quite as egregious as "the description says it's the queen's private study but it's drawn like a huge ballroom lined with columns" but basically that kind of dissonance.

 

[Reynard]

Maybe not quite as egregious as "the description says it's the queen's private study but it's drawn like a huge ballroom lined with columns" but basically that kind of dissonance.

That's too bad. I don't mind them using an existing Logos map, but then write to THAT.