So as I noted in another thread here my big RPG writing project for this year is a conversion and expansion of the Undermountain material from 2e and 5e over to Castles & Crusades. In the process, in addition to reading that stuff, I've been going back through megadungeons I already own for inspiration.
One thing that has really jumped out are the great variations in approach to room/encounter descriptions. They go from being super minimalist like "broken chair, rat, (2 hp)" as in the original Tegel Manor to (in the case of Arden Vul and to some extent the original Undermountain boxed set) discourses that might run several pages describing a single room or encounter. To me there needs to be some middle ground. Having grown up playing in the 80s, I'm still partial to the brief boxed text room description with additional short encounter notes if needed.
I'm not at all a fan of the bullet point fad that seems to be sweeping D&D retroclones like OSE these days as I find that harder to digest in play than the boxed text.
I also want full monster stat blocks in the room descriptions; not just in some table or, even worse, just a reference to some other monster book.
What about you? Where do you fall in the description spectrum? Minimalist or over the top? This presumes you're using something someone else wrote, though I put my principles into practice in my own games.
The "Read this text" bit should be no more than 3-5 lines. Basically a mid-sized paragraph. If you absolutely need to include other details, then you can include a list of important points that player scan find if they ask to look more closely at something.
At first, I embraced the bullet point fad and the bolded words, but it comes across as more form than function in actual play. When I properly prep, I find it is more creative than improv. Of course, improv occurs throughout play, but getting started with a super clean description sets it up nicely.
"Like the others, this room has been thoroughly tossed. The furniture is overturned, some of it broken. Across from you is a door. There is also a door on the north wall, to your left. Both are closed. A desk with some papers on it is pushed up against the wall on your right. It sits under a large tapestry."
That is the maximum amount of detail I can give without people needing me to repeat stuff. It is quick, to the point. With just bullets, I would add filler on the fly. Filler tends to be wordy. We might make it 8-10 rooms in a typical night. Having prepared descriptions gives the game a more polished feel.
I don't like the traditional use of boxed text at all, as I'm always going to paraphrase based on the information. And while I prefer minimal more than not, I don't like the ultra minimal version with 2 lines per room.
What I've been experimenting with for my own notes, that is so far working fairly well for me is:
- boxed text with some of the same information that goes in the minimal format, short, clipped, essentials--especially the stuff needed to describe the first reaction to the room.
- regular text that is follow up with whatever was in the box, such as the creature stat lines, treasure, or if I need a more involved description once something is examined.
- naming the rooms something evocative (as many of the minimalist approaches do).
- combining a several rooms into a logical grouping, and then naming that.
The named, logical grouping comes before the individual rooms, and in that section I write anything I need about common smells, drafts, typical corridor dimensions, etc. Then I also put any creatures that routinely move around that area.
I think this approach helps, because as you can see, as much as I love concise writing, I struggle to produce it. ;) The logical grouping gives me an outlet to throw in some complete sentences or other notes while being more disciplined in the individual room descriptions. YMMV.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 17, 2023, 05:02:31 PM
I don't like the traditional use of boxed text at all, as I'm always going to paraphrase based on the information. And while I prefer minimal more than not, I don't like the ultra minimal version with 2 lines per room.
What I've been experimenting with for my own notes, that is so far working fairly well for me is:
- boxed text with some of the same information that goes in the minimal format, short, clipped, essentials--especially the stuff needed to describe the first reaction to the room.
- regular text that is follow up with whatever was in the box, such as the creature stat lines, treasure, or if I need a more involved description once something is examined.
- naming the rooms something evocative (as many of the minimalist approaches do).
- combining a several rooms into a logical grouping, and then naming that.
The named, logical grouping comes before the individual rooms, and in that section I write anything I need about common smells, drafts, typical corridor dimensions, etc. Then I also put any creatures that routinely move around that area.
I think this approach helps, because as you can see, as much as I love concise writing, I struggle to produce it. ;) The logical grouping gives me an outlet to throw in some complete sentences or other notes while being more disciplined in the individual room descriptions. YMMV.
Some good points here and in the other responses. One issue I have with bullet points is that they often aren't nested/listed in any real order so you can't easily distinguish the more important stuff. As for changing/bolding font, that can be distracting rather than helpful. And I concur with evocative room descriptions rather than "empty room," "square room" etc.
Running Stonehell, Barrowmaze and Arden Vul. I prefer Stonehell's minimalism to Arden Vul's turgid verbosity. But Barrowmaze hits the sweet spot pretty well.
My litmus test for descriptions is "enough fluff to create the atmosphere, without leaving out any crunch in a way that will screw the players".
That latter, of course, is one of the big dilemmas in DMing: if you tell your players only enough in an encounter so that they know what they need to know, they'll assume everything you tell them has a reason for being there and usually get pretty quick at figuring out what it is, which gets dull. If you scatter in fluff among the crunch, they'll go crazy trying to figure out which is which, and some will be annoyed that something they thought was crunch was just fluff while others will be annoyed that you "put one over on them" when they decide something is just fluff and miss a vital bit of crunch.
Quote from: Persimmon on January 17, 2023, 05:11:28 PMOne issue I have with bullet points is that they often aren't nested/listed in any real order so you can't easily distinguish the more important stuff.
I like bullets, and I use them liberally. For lists of short, punchy things I want to be able to scan quickly, getting back to eye contact with players as soon as possible. I like them for big treasure lists, for example, or to summarize a list of monsters or NPCs.
As a universal way to have short, punchy everything, I find them distinctly lacking. It's an unordered list. Not everything is communicated clearly in the that format.
I'm partial to stat blocks for rooms.
What material the room is made of. How tall the ceilings and their type of arch. Ending and ground level. Thicknesses of walls and doors.
This allows for easy calculation of perception checks and gives both the DM and the players ideas for any potential tactical situations that may arise while exploring the room.
Quote from: S'mon on January 17, 2023, 05:38:38 PM
Running Stonehell, Barrowmaze and Arden Vul. I prefer Stonehell's minimalism to Arden Vul's turgid verbosity. But Barrowmaze hits the sweet spot pretty well.
I agree. I've run Stonehell & Barrowmaze, but Arden Vul was so verbose that I sold it. Shame, because there are some cool things in there. But I could never see myself running it. I still have the pdfs, just in case.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 17, 2023, 06:07:58 PM
Quote from: Persimmon on January 17, 2023, 05:11:28 PMOne issue I have with bullet points is that they often aren't nested/listed in any real order so you can't easily distinguish the more important stuff.
I like bullets, and I use them liberally. For lists of short, punchy things I want to be able to scan quickly, getting back to eye contact with players as soon as possible. I like them for big treasure lists, for example, or to summarize a list of monsters or NPCs.
As a universal way to have short, punchy everything, I find them distinctly lacking. It's an unordered list. Not everything is communicated clearly in the that format.
I also have pivoted to the Bolded and Bullet Points for simplicity and if the PC's want to know more I can easily give them more detail. If they skip the room I can move on with the next area and not waste time presenting info they don't care about.
Example:
Blood on Walls - you see scrawling patters written in Gnome warning there are dangers ahead
Overturned Furniture - tables and chairs tossed around looking as if this room was recently ransacked
Chest - large wooden chest with claw marks on it as if something was trying to open it.
I can describe a room with 8 words and if anything piques their interest i list out what they are looking for and go from there. Large blocks of text cause players eyes to glaze over. I've found that Keeping It Simple Stupid (KISS) works easier and more focused on items of interest.
I think this thread demonstrates something very important: good GMs should write their own adventures and dungeons. When you're using a published adventure, you have to succumb to the sensibilities of someone who might do things differently than you would, and you also have to wade through a bunch of crap that might be too sparse to be useful or so verbose to be impenetrable. When I write a description of a dungeon room, I put whatever I think is important and/or interesting, and I *remember* that. Because I wrote it. It might be a bullet point or two, or it might be a paragraph, but because I wrote it myself I know how it's supposed to work in the grand scheme of things. Contrast with a published megadungeon and it becomes a pain in the royal ass to keep everything working properly. I tried to run Undermountain once because I am enamored with it, but that was an exercise in futility.
I prefer the minimalist approach, with enough details to point out the important (crunch) things. I can always fill in the fluff myself. Whether that's in block text or bulletpoint, doesn't really matter. Just as long as I can parse it easily.
What I really detest is long "Read This" sections with all kinds of information mashed together, then a "GM's note" afterward describing what's important and what's a red herring. I'd much rather see two lists separating what's important detail from fluff, and just make up my own descriptions from that. Another reason I hate the long "Read This" format is that they are usually just massive info-dumps. I'd much rather dole out things piece-meal to the players as they begin investigating.
For this reason (among others), I rarely ever ran modules the way they were written. I would usually just take the general idea and write my own adventure.
I. I number the room but also provide a name and the size.
3. Makeshift Kitchen (20x15)
This gives the players a visual and makes it easy for me to answer questions. Size is probably overkill but on large rooms it keeps me from counting out the squares.
2. Then the beasts if any. Since nobody is gonna notice the fine details when albino Grimlocks are charging at them.
3. Then bullet points on whatever is left. Treasure, strange moaning sound coming from the smoke vent, concealed door hidden behind the tapestry. That sort of thing.
If a room has a complicated shape or features that might be tactical I draw that out ahead of time as a handout.
I never have a read-aloud section. I improv that from the info.
I second Leopold's approach. Bold keys for objects in the room. Clearly identifying secrets in this format also helps me not accidentally give them away.
I don't read box text. I might paraphrase it. There's something in the human psyche that induces sleep when listening to reading. Maybe bedtime stories?
Also, for the love of god don't be coy or subtle. If item A is important later in room B, tell us! If the body in the crypt is the evil Wizard, tell us! This is not literature where it's better to leave it to the reader to discover.
Also I find LotFP style "if someone does X, then..." super fucking useful. See rant point above.
Quote from: Brad on January 18, 2023, 10:56:41 AM
I think this thread demonstrates something very important: good GMs should write their own adventures and dungeons. When you're using a published adventure, you have to succumb to the sensibilities of someone who might do things differently than you would, and you also have to wade through a bunch of crap that might be too sparse to be useful or so verbose to be impenetrable. When I write a description of a dungeon room, I put whatever I think is important and/or interesting, and I *remember* that. Because I wrote it. It might be a bullet point or two, or it might be a paragraph, but because I wrote it myself I know how it's supposed to work in the grand scheme of things. Contrast with a published megadungeon and it becomes a pain in the royal ass to keep everything working properly. I tried to run Undermountain once because I am enamored with it, but that was an exercise in futility.
As I'm going through the old Undermountain material I'm finding that the two best aspects are the fact that very little of the original dungeon is filled in (and those maps are great, albeit large & unwieldy), and you've got a thin backstory to work with as much or little as you like. But damn those room and encounter descriptions can get convoluted to the point of uselessness.
In some ways the 5e version is easier to use or at least comprehend. Maps are smaller and tighter; the room descriptions are nested lists with a mix of bolded text and bullets; and the whole thing is explicitly tied to the mad mage Halaster. They also allow for expansion on every level. But it also tries too hard to push factions and alliance building which is annoying given that pretty much everything in the dungeon is evil and will betray you sooner or later. Guess it's part of the 5e "gray area" moral agenda. We stake vampires and end drow, not befriend them. Not positive though, as I own no other 5e products.
So with all this together, I'm pleased as I can make it my own, echoing one of the points made above. But I don't think I'd run any published version of it quite as written.
I want minimal, but interesting.
Huge pile of broken chairs dominates the chamber (giant rat lair)
...rat clan will defend area to death
Chained coffin floats over an crescent shaped altar made of volcanic rock
...coffin shakes if approached
Absolutely empty, except for sticky mucous on the floors, walls and ceiling.
...a giant slime cube just left the area dragging valuable treasure with it
I absolutely will NOT read (nor write) boxed text.
Rytrasmi nailed it - there's something about reading boxed text that causes players to tune out, even short text! Far better to glance down, read a quick reminder about the room and describe it aloud quickly giving eye contact to the players.
Quote from: Spinachcat on January 19, 2023, 12:22:01 AM
I absolutely will NOT read (nor write) boxed text.
Rytrasmi nailed it - there's something about reading boxed text that causes players to tune out, even short text! Far better to glance down, read a quick reminder about the room and describe it aloud quickly giving eye contact to the players.
That's why I've been experimenting with putting key words for the initial impression of the room into a box. I'm trying to reform boxed text into something useful, i.e. not something you read aloud, but things that are supposed to really stand out.
I admit that the results so far are mixed, and I attribute most of the negatives to the connotations that a box of text brings to mind when you see one. I've also tried this with some success:
- Room Name and Number as header
- Initial room phrases in short paragraph, occasionally bullets when useful
- "Box" with creature info, but with the box formatted to only have top and bottom border, not sides.
- Any longer text for clarity
- Trap: Short stats on trap, explanation as needed, though description and interactions are in earlier text.
- Treasure: Stats on treasure, ditto on earlier descriptions and interactions, often uses bullets.
Leave out any section that doesn't apply to the room. This format seems to break up the wall of text effect while still allowing for longer text when needed. Plus, creature stats in a box with left and right borders feels kind of cramped, but taking the sides out works fine.
However, lately I've been just sticking "Creature: " before "Trap", using bullets for multiple type or short stat block for single type. It's not quite as useful in play as the above format, but it's notably easier to copy, paste, modify when I'm writing or editing the adventure.
Another question is Keying the dungeon:
How do you label rooms, levels, areas, etc not only in a single dungeon but in a multilevel Delve. I have a 10 level megadungeon with thousands of rooms. How would and do people handle this sprawling amount of room structure.
Please keep the conversation to discussing the topic of Dungeon Keying and not as to why I chose to the number and type of rooms.
Quote from: THE_Leopold on January 19, 2023, 08:07:42 AM
Another question is Keying the dungeon:
How do you label rooms, levels, areas, etc not only in a single dungeon but in a multilevel Delve. I have a 10 level megadungeon with thousands of rooms. How would and do people handle this sprawling amount of room structure.
Please keep the conversation to discussing the topic of Dungeon Keying and not as to why I chose to the number and type of rooms.
Keep in mind the rule of 7, as in a person can generally only keep in their head a maximum of seven things at once--less under non-optimal conditions (e.g. after running a game for several hours).
A full list of rooms, 1 through 3,000 is obviously bad. It's keyed but almost useless to organize. Less obvious, is that breaking it down by level is still not enough, especially if there is a lot of vertical paths (and there should be in a megadungeon).
Let's say you have 3,000 rooms. OK, 300 per level, on average. Divide those into logical groupings by architecture, monster areas, etc into 4-7 rooms each. Say 5 rooms on average. That gets you down to 60 groupings per level. Still way too many. So you need another level of organization between the groupings and the dungeon level. There will be about 10-15 of those per level. Call them regions.
If it were me, I'd make it a point of thinking about entrance/exit to both room groups (easy) and regions (somewhat harder to do well, but worth it). Then summarize the dungeon level to level passages at the start of the level, with references to the regions for more details.
It's almost impossible to get a handle on a dungeon that large, but if it can be done at all, it will be because there are carefully chosen bits of information organized in the correct room/group/regions/level/overall dungeon descriptions. Rooms 97-102 might as well be useless, but Rooms 97-102 of the Goblin Outpost (group) in the Red Goblin Lair (region) of Level 1, is something I can remember at a high level when the party approaches it and then drill-down to recall as they hit it.
Since I'm only writing for myself with no intention of ever publishing the stuff, I keep my keys straightforward and simple. Usually I'll jot down notes about the level itself, including random encounters/events/discoveries and features germane to that level.
Every room gets a name and number, though some might be grouped together like (25-30: Cell block). Sometimes I number consecutively through the whole dungeon, other times I restart the numbering for every level. In some cases if there are, say, a bunch of small interconnected caverns, rooms or whatever, I'll just put together a mini table with random rolls periodically to determine what the PCs find/see. This could include maps, small bits of treasure, discarded backpacks, etc., to keep things interesting.
Pretty vanilla, but that's how I grew up doing it and I see no reason to change at this point.
I am glad that folks spoke up about Regions, Groups, and Zones to further break down the massive amount of areas.
This was my thinking as well to cluster the dungeons/areas into groupings to categorize them further as some of the areas populated by certain monsters span multiple levels.
I am interested to see how others would do such as tying both Original Topic and this concept together has been a challenge for me in my megadungeon.
Quote from: Persimmon on January 17, 2023, 04:21:44 PM
What about you? Where do you fall in the description spectrum? Minimalist or over the top? This presumes you're using something someone else wrote, though I put my principles into practice in my own games.
I like minimalist.
I'm a module collector. I love them. But if I'm going to be honest with myself, 90%+ of all modules add no value at all. The time and energy it takes to read through a module, read it a second time taking notes, and a third time fine-tuning, is far, far more than it takes to just create your own adventure. Story ideas? Fine. But it takes me longer to read a module than it does to watch a Steven Seagal movie, and the plots usually aren't a lot better. I'm more likely to steal a plot idea from an old John Wayne western or an episode of the Thundercats, as they are so effective at telling a complete story in 20 minutes. So I can't even grant most modules credit for idea mining. Contemporary professional standards in module publishing guarantee complete uselessness. Still, collectors like me will buy them.
But that still leaves the <10% of modules that actually do bring something to the table.
I consider Keep on the Borderlands to be one of the best modules ever created. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd rate the content a 7. It's good. It's fun. But it's nothing earth-shattering. I bump that up to 8 because it covers the bases of what you'd need to run a campaign. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. And then I bump that to a 10 for what I feel most sets it apart from the rabble. This module legit does save me a lot of time and energy. I can run it zero-prep.
What makes it work is the descriptions are kept brief enough that I can read ahead the next 3 rooms while the players explore the current room.
It wouldn't work if the stat blocks were put in a separate place. Too much flipping back and forth.
It wouldn't work if the stat blocks were nicely formatted. That would take up too much space on the page. Brief in-line stat blocks are key. In my own notes, my in-line stat blocks are even leaner than what you see in Keep.
It wouldn't work if the descriptions had box text. That would take up too much space.
Bulletted lists any any forced format or outline also needlessly add space with no real return on the page real estate investment. With some exceptions, plain old paragraph format is usually the most space efficient.
Quote from: Brad on January 18, 2023, 10:56:41 AM
I think this thread demonstrates something very important: good GMs should write their own adventures and dungeons. When you're using a published adventure, you have to succumb to the sensibilities of someone who might do things differently than you would, and you also have to wade through a bunch of crap that might be too sparse to be useful or so verbose to be impenetrable.
Given my feelings on the 90%+ of modules, obviously I agree with this. I reached that conclusion a long, long time ago. But then it's like, okay, so I'm going to write my own adventure. And what I find is certain parts of certain types of adventures can be a lot of work. Even when I'm doing a quick prep, slap an adventure together last minute, a lot of that involves me flipping back and forth between monsters and magic items to jot down some stats so I have them handy during play. For an adventure of appreciable length and detail, that in itself can take a couple of hours or more.
So there is a lot of nuts and bolts work where modules can be a huge time saver without stepping on my creative toes.
I'm also a minimalist. If I wanted verbose descriptions, I'd feed my bullet points as prompts into ChatGPT.