D&D 5E To boxed text or not to boxed text

[77IM]

James Introcaso is my new favorite person. I thought he was just a dude who hangs out with Johnn Four, but it turns out he's EVERYWHERE. Mark my words, James Introcaso is the Shawn Merwin of our generation.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[LordEntrails]

Last weekend I sat at a game where I was a PC for the first time in 15 years (the last time was a Dogs in the Vineyard one shot)....

This is a great story. And has almost nothing to do with boxed text or pre-written narration. It has very little to do with the discussion even though it is about a new GM.

It has nothing to do with the OP because its not about a pre-written adventure etc so how can it add value to the discussion of boxed text? All it does is support the premise that many have made that different people learn and play in different ways.

Begin With: It is a rainy day as the Adventurers travel down a muddy rural path. As the heroes round the bend, the see an overturned cart and scattered bodies of peasants. A single old man lies beaten and moaning against a tree. In his right hand, he holds a silken black rope tied to a large Highland red bull. The bull eyes the Adventurers passively, but does not leave the old man’s side.​

I can't remember how I narrated this opening, ...

And how is this "Begins With" any different than boxed text? Oh it's not formatted in a box, but that's it. It is still written in a way that can be read verbatim to the players. It still is a suggestion to the DM/GM on what information the players will typically learn at the start of the encounter, it is exactly what good boxed text should be.

The only difference is that you see it as a suggestion because its not in a box and you feel that if its in a box then someone is demanding you read it verbatim. That'snot how boxed text should be used; its a suggestion for the default situation. Its a starting point.

 

[Manbearcat]

So, I honestly think that both you and pemerton are completely not understanding the point other people are making.

On this bit here, it appears that you're bringing in posting history and other threads. On this point, I don't agree with your takeaway of my position (insofar as it seems like you're aggregating a wide variety of positions/issues/and opposition) when we're talking about the specific TTRPG and GMing issues of other threads.

However, I definitely don't agree that your post directly above hooks into the point under discussion in my tiny little contribution to this thread.

A point was made about what is perceived as the exclusive concerns for newly minted GMs, and, simultaneously, what is peripheral or what is irrelevant.

With that in mind:

1) I don't agree that those are exclusive concerns except insofar that your exposure is cordoned to a very specific mental framework and/or a very specific brand of gaming.

2) I also don't agree with the rider to that statement; x, y, z are peripheral or irrelevant.

3) Put it together and a position is arrived at that the zeitgeist of this particular mental framework and brand of gaming is "accessible" and therefore normative/orthodox, should be treated as such, and other types treated as deviant and/or inaccessible to the point that attempting to "cut one's teeth" on it is apt to lead to turning away from the hobby.

That was the very specific point I was contending with.

Nothing about "boxed text is bad" and whatever one might extrapolate from that position (I don't think boxed text is inherently, universally bad by the way).

Just that I cut my teeth on a different type of gaming (different than the Dungeon World anecdote I presented above). The values I GMed under were very much about being able to generate content that focused on interesting decision-points for the players and neutral refereeing...and I very much appreciated tools/techniques that facilitated * that.

* a fleshed out mapped and keyed dungeon, codified/tight play procedures - Exploration Turns, Wandering Monster Clock, Monster Reactions, Morale - that emboldened neutral refereeing and rendered null the application of GM Force as much as possible such that the output of play could achieve as much competitive integrity and "play to find out" as we could muster, even though we didn't have that jargon to express those values.

 

[Manbearcat]

This is a great story. And has almost nothing to do with boxed text or pre-written narration. It has very little to do with the discussion even though it is about a new GM.

It has nothing to do with the OP because its not about a pre-written adventure etc so how can it add value to the discussion of boxed text? All it does is support the premise that many have made that different people learn and play in different ways.

I was responding to the particular point that you made in your post.

I thought it was an interesting point, I have different thoughts on that particular cultural/TTRPGing value than you do, so I figured I'd contribute those thoughts.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[LordEntrails]

I was responding to the particular point that you made in your post.

I thought it was an interesting point, I have different thoughts on that particular cultural/TTRPGing value than you do, so I figured I'd contribute those thoughts.

Let me just say that I hope I did not come across as dismissive of your story. I don't mean to, I just don't see that it really is on topic. I think [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] replies pretty well about the topic and staying on it etc, I'll leave his response as the desired ... response *G*

 

[Azzy]

Just want to pop in with the fact that I found the prescripted narration of boxed text turned me off to using modules when I was a new DM. Reading text aloud and dictated narration was far more uncomfortable and off-putting to me than weaving the necessary details into my own narration. Yes, my experience may be an outlier, but there it is. As it was, it made me want to create my own adventures. So I guess there was an upside to it.

 

[Satyrn]

Just want to pop in with the fact that I found the prescripted narration of boxed text turned me off to using modules when I was a new DM. Reading text aloud and dictated narration was far more uncomfortable and off-putting to me than weaving the necessary details into my own narration. Yes, my experience may be an outlier, but there it is. As it was, it made me want to create my own adventures. So I guess there was an upside to it.

This is pretty much my experience, too.

I find boxed text too often assumes too much, which leaves me having to edit it on the fly, having to figure out what to cut and what needs to be reworded. Even in what is pretty decent boxed text, like @Immortal Sun posted earlier:

"The room is poorly lit by dim moonlight entering through a half-covered window on the far side. A light breeze flows through the open window causing the shadows of the covered furniture to move ever so slightly. The only thing uncovered in the room is a large standing mirror which doesn't appear to reflect the room."

Like, if it's not night, or I've determined the moon's not out, I've got to change the description based on the different lighting in play. Totally minor change, I know, but I've encountered too much boxed text that makes far more assumptions than this example does, that I'd prefer not to use it.

 

[Manbearcat]

Maybe! I don't think so, though. To be very specific, this is (or, at least, was) a thread about boxed text.

It's a thread in the D&D forum, not the general RPG forum. So, at least theoretically, we are discussing D&D modules.

In addition, the OP specifically was discussing a debate over D&D modules. From the OP-

"Fierce Debate Breaks Out Over 'Dungeons & Dragons' Boxed Text in Adventures"

So, we are talking about whether or not boxed text is helpful, or not helpful, in the context of D&D modules and adventures. At least, that was the topic I thought we were discussing?*

IME, and IMO, while some systems allow for easier and more free "improv" and "sandbox" play, D&D is not really the best system for that. Certainly not when you're learning to DM, and you may not even know the rules very well.

And in the context of written adventures that you purchase (which is what we are discussing?) this is even more confusing to me.


*To be clear, my examples both from my past, and from teaching others, is about D&D.

Alright, let me make sure what you're saying here. Is this something about forum etiquette?

1) LE made a statement that he felt hooked into/supported his position as it relates to boxed text. This was a statement about the focal points and values of beginner GMing or what the mainstream culture should push as the focal points and values of beginner GMing.

2) I feel like that statement is controversial and provided my reasoning (which also would eventually hook back into "boxed text"...but we would have to work our way there).

3) My sense is that my (2) above does not equal topic drift.

So exactly where do you come in here?

* LE's initial statement isn't topic drift (at all).

* LE's statement isn't controversial and therefore cannot be topic drift.

* LE's statement could be construed as topic drift (either because it plain is or because it isn't an outright truism) but isn't absolute topic drift. The only way it becomes actual topic drift is if someone voices their disagreement and related conversation ensues.

* Your (not?) topic drift engagement on my topic drift to LE's (not?) topic drift is appropriate because topic drift principle x?

* Topic drift principle x allows for drift after y number of pages?

---

Can I just say that I'd much rather be talking about the genesis of GMing and then discussing how that hooks into the utility (or the problem) of "boxed text"?