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

[Maxperson]

@Maxperson, @QuentinGeorge - here is the post that I am elaborating upon (as I understand it - it's not my post):

The two of you have made it clear that you do not regard boxed text as the niche tool this post describes it as. You are happy to have descriptions prepared in advance but don't regard that as part of getting ready to run a railroad.

Yes, and our way is the common way to use box text. True railroads are relatively rare.

That's your prerogative, of course. But on the flip side, you can probably infer what I think and what I take @chaochou to think: namely, if I'm not planning to run a game with pre-determined content and scenes (ie a railroad), then boxed text is not a useful tool.

That I can agree with. It wouldn't be useful for your playstyle.

Again, the thought - at least, my thought but I believe also @chaochou's thought - is that if the game is not a railroad then that stuff will be worked out in the course of play via player-GM interaction.

And this is incorrect. Playstyles that are not your playstyle do not equate to railroading. Railroading is a very specific and negative way to play, where you force players down a path. If that force is not being applied, then there is no railroad. There is nothing inherent to boxed text that implies railroad. Heck, it doesn't even imply a linear, non-railroad game.

 

[Sacrosanct]

This I do not have a problem with.



It is not a straw man argument, but you just made one.

By design, boxed text is meant to be read aloud, correct? And most of the time, that text is going to be in English. But quite often, your campaign is not being run in English. So you are interrupting your session with reading text aloud in a different language. That is jarring, and one of several reasons I listed for disliking boxed text.

It is a completely fair argument.

That's not what you initially said though. You said that only a small percentage of D&D players run the game in the same language as the text language is of the material in front of them. That's not a fair argument because it goes against everything we know about the game and the players. And if true, then you need to provide some sort of data behind it. Saying "Lots of countries speak languages other than English, German, Spanish, French, Japanese, etc" (all languages the game is translated into) does not mean that only a tiny percentage of players play in countries where those languages are their primary language. Do you know how many countries have English or Spanish as their primary language? It's a lot more than 2, and when you add in the other available languages, and look at where the game has sold, it appears you have it backwards. It's not a tiny percentage who run the game in the same language as the books, it's a tiny percentage of overall gamers who run the game in a different language than what is available in text.

I.e., it's not about the # of countries that don't have one of those languages as a primary language, it's about of all the people who play the game, where do they live. Maybe because we just had an election, but this reminds me of the argument "I won more counties in the US, so I should have won the election." when the great flaw in that is that it's ignoring where the people actually live. How many live in Orange county CA vs Wallowa county Oregon. How many D&D players live in the US, UK, Germany, France, Spain, Mexico, Central&South America, Japan, Australia, New Zealand vs how many live in Denmark, Iran, or Romania? Is it truly only a tiny %?

I don't necessarily disagree with all of your other objections (they are your opinion and preference and are welcome to them). I just can't see the logic behind saying that one of your top objections is that "only a small percentage of players run the game in the same language as it's written."

 

[el-remmen]

I think Imaculata's complaint about boxed text makes perfect sense. As someone who plays in English but is bilingual, as often as we can be used to switching between languages, in some contexts it can still be bewildering, esp. when you brain is trying to read one language as the other (common when languages share alphabets, for example). It might only be a second of cognitive dissonance but it can be a stumbling block.

That said, I think that is a good argument for why they don't like/use boxed text and not an argument against boxed text in general.

As I said above, I like the box itself, but if it held a bullet point list instead of a prosaic description that'd be okay as long as the box is still there.

The notion that boxed text = railroad is absurd. That is like saying, having stat blocks ready for monsters the PCs may encounter is a railroad.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think Imaculata's complaint about boxed text makes perfect sense. As someone who plays in English but is bilingual, as often as we can be used to switching between languages, in some contexts it can still be bewildering, esp. when you brain is trying to read one language as the other (common when languages share alphabets, for example). It might only be a second of cognitive dissonance but it can be a stumbling block.

I don't disagree with how that can be off-putting. The part I disagreed with was the claim that only a small % of players play the game in the same language as the rules text language.

 

[el-remmen]

I don't disagree with how that can be off-putting. The part I disagreed with was the claim that only a small % of players play the game in the same language as the rules text language.

But that is irrelevant to this discussion in general, regardless of its veracity, thus I see no point in engaging with it. I also think Imaculata was speaking colloquially and not trying to make a specific statistical claim - so no need to be pedantic about it.

 

[pemerton]

The notion that boxed text = railroad is absurd. That is like saying, having stat blocks ready for monsters the PCs may encounter is a railroad.

There is nothing inherent to boxed text that implies railroad. Heck, it doesn't even imply a linear, non-railroad game.

I think it is obvious that boxed text implies that the description of the setting, and perhaps also of events occurring, is pre-determined.

 

[Maxperson]

I think it is obvious that boxed text implies that the description of the setting, and perhaps also of events occurring, is pre-determined.

Not really. If the PCs never go there, the event and description never happen for the PCs/Players. Saying that IF X happens, then Y happens is not pre-determining Y.

 

[kenada]

I don’t like boxed text. It usually means that I’m going to have to re-key the adventure to make it usable at the table. What I like is keys organized into information hierarchies.

The top-level items are the obvious stuff, but I can go deeper or not based on what makes sense, and it gives me a good tool for providing additional detail to the PCs as they explore a scene. The Alexandrian did a decent series on keys several years ago, but now I just point to Winter’s Daughter as an example of a key done right.

 

[Asisreo]

Players can get frustrated when they don't know what they can interact with. Good boxed text immediately describes the scene and briefly mentions obvious interactables.

Boxed text in adventures can be presumptuous but good boxed text only shows a perspective which can be guaranteed based on the activation of the boxed text itself. For example, if a boxed text read:

"As you open the door, they see an abyss of pure black darkness envelop your field of view."

It makes the assumption that the players enter the room by opening the door and that the players can only see black when they enter. This is, imo, a poorly implemented boxed text. A well-implemented one would go as follows:

If the players open the door, read the following:
"You see an abyss of pure black darkness envelop your field of view."
If the player opening the door can see through darkness, instead read:
"You see an abandoned labratory with scientific equipment beyond repair sprawled onto the ground. A key is left on top of a folded paper on a desk, isolated."
Then it goes on to describe the room in the description text.

This accomplishes 2 things. If the player doesn't open the door, the boxed text isn't relevant. Its making no assumptions because it only uses the action which is guaranteed to have happened based off of its own activation.

It also makes sure a player that can see through the darkness gets an accurate description without being left with darkness they should be able to see. It doesn't assume any special vision, though, because not only could it not be darkvision, it could also be a light source. Even magical darkness can be dispelled so its important that the DM can still give a boxed response.

My main issue usually comes when boxed text takes too long or tell your players what their characters do or feel.

"You tremble in your boots as the dragon imposes himself, you are terrified." Is horrible boxed text. Not only is it telling your players how their characters feel and do, but its assuming they're wearing boots!

 

[billd91]

It makes the assumption that the players enter the room by opening the door and that the players can only see black when they enter. This is, imo, a poorly implemented boxed text. A well-implemented one would go as follows:

If the players open the door, read the following:
"You see an abyss of pure black darkness envelop your field of view."
If the player opening the door can see through darkness, instead read:
"You see an abandoned labratory with scientific equipment beyond repair sprawled onto the ground. A key is left on top of a folded paper on a desk, isolated."
Then it goes on to describe the room in the description text.

This accomplishes 2 things. If the player doesn't open the door, the boxed text isn't relevant. Its making no assumptions because it only uses the action which is guaranteed to have happened based off of its own activation.

I think that building in a lot of conditionals would ultimately make the boxed text too cumbersome to use. Honestly, it shouldn't be too much to write it one way and then expect the GM to paraphrase as necessary.