|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
I'm actually in the DeathQuaker camp - I don't believe in read-aloud text at all.
I would write something like this:
"Four giant spiders live in the room. The ceiling is covered in webs. At any one time one of the spiders is likely to be concealed by the webbing as they scutter about, requiring a Perception check DC 12 to spot, otherwise their presence is pretty obvious as they weave and re-weave their webbing in an attempt to construct the perfect fly-trap.
Not that it's done them much good - they haven't had a decent meal in a fortnight and are now more than likely to attack anything that comes in here even if it's wrapped in plate armour."
And so on.
The key thing about this approach is that it makes no assumptions about the circumstances under which the PCs will encounter this situation. PC action could result in them all clattering in here at the same time, or one of them creeping by himself, or perhaps they chase a goblin into this room, may be one that's carrying a torch. Alternatively the GM might decide that some of the spiders are going to go out hunting, or perhaps something else in the dungeon will come and hunt them.
With this sort of approach to writing, you're providing the GM with the information that she needs in order for her to run it in her own way. You're explaining why things are the way they are, rather than presenting a karaoke-style set of instructions. Clearly some people prefer the latter, perhaps most people, but this alternative does exist, and it's in fact how things used to be back in the very early days of D&D (I remember how shocked I was when read-aloud text first appeared in module A1).
+1. I like the telling a story, with some fun background facts, but not assuming any particular action on the side of the PC's. This makes the adventure fun to read, can easily serve/be adapted as read aloud text in an emergency and does not prep plot but sets a up a situation. (See Alexandrian blog post: don't prep plot)