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.