|
This seems to be the industry norm (or at least the Dungeon Mag/Paizo norm) but it's caused me many troubles when running my games, so I'm gonna finally get around to complaining =p.
The room descriptions for the dungeons are great, they set the location, the only problem? They don't set the creatures. I go through a sometimes lengthy description, and my players think I'm done and start to describe their actions and I gotta go "Wait! You ALSO see (flips open to MM page and reads monster description)"
It kind of messes up the pacing of the dungeon crawling and it'd be nice to have the creature descriptions for non-wandering monsters, especially when it's a new monster.
lol. I've done that too.
I don't read those out loud anymore--I sort of steal a few phrases and add my own stuff. I've just starting running pre-made modules again and mostly I photocopy or print pdf and have annotations that I use to do my room descriptions.
I guess the conventional wisdom is that you have to describe the room before the monsters or you'll never get the chance to describe the room. Otherwise, the PCs will win initiative and charge across the room to engage, falling into the pit of acid on the way. The one you didn't get a chance to mention.
Director of Game Development
|
Though I rarely run pre-written mods, I've found that reading the entire encounter is important. Then you can seed the critter into the description. I know you do this, I'm just highlighting the importance.
I think critters are not written into the read aloud text because they are highly variable. Sometimes the critters are hiding, sometimes they might not be in the room (drawn into the previous fight, defensively pulled back, etc.) I know that those are circumstantial, but the main point of read aloud text is to set the mood and describe the room. The kind of things that don't really have much chance of changing.
If my circumstantial examples above came into play, folks would be upset that they had to edit out a portion of the read aloud to accommodate for the critter to no longer be present, and I think it is easier for a GM to add in the critter at the right time than to delete flavor text.
My two.
|
I have done the same...
Now what I do is determine how easily the PCs will see the monster and how quickly the monster will attack and then describe the room accordingly. If a huge thing with big pointy teeth is leaping at you from the corner, you're not going to be admiring the post-thassilonian architecture and musing over the various glyphs on the wall.
Generally I save the detailed description anymore for after the bad guys are down. The exceptions are those large features (desks, altars, pillars, etc.) that might affect the combat.
Of course if the monster is invisible or hiding the room description is good.
I've had this problem too and there aren't many ways around it when you play in a non-english game. I can't steal a frase from the read-aloud-text and then switch to my mother-tounge in the next frase, it sounds realy bad.
I distinctly remember WotC working on this problem a couple of month before they announced 4e. Then they started producing the encounter-format adventures (and if anything they contained even more reading aloud), and after that nothing was ever heard again.
I still use the read-aloud as I stated, but don't read the creature description aloud. The creatures get my description of them and sometimes I just show a picure to my players.
Even when the room description does include the monster, it's usually listed last, as if the PCs bust into a room and analyze all the walls and furniture before noticing the ogres. That's plenty ridiculus for us and has turned many otherwise ominous encounters into giggle-fests.
To solve this, I've taken to parsing out information in terms of the order it would be noticed. Something like "This mid-sized room appears to be some kind of sleeping chamber, but your attention is drawn to the two ogres rising from their sleeping mats."
Other tactical elements, like light sources or the above-mentioned pit of acid, would also be included in this initial appraisal. Over the course of the combat, players can get more description of the room as they interact with it. Otherwise, the full detailed room description waits until after the fight's done.
This has the added benefit that important room clues aren't forgotten over the course of the fight.
|
|
This hasn't happened to me very much, but it did this past weekend when running Hollow's Last Hope. There was a big description and then I added something like "oh, yeah, there's a giant dire wolf in the middle of the room" that lead to quite a laugh.
I'm going to just run reverse from now on. Open the door, "holy carp, a giant troll in armor with a greatsword, it charges, roll for initiative!" and then add the words "now that the creature is dead, you see..." at the start of each room text.
-DM Jeff
|
I too have been caught out by this on many occasions. It's so frustrating for the players to get 3 paragraphs of room description, which contain details that they could only see by standing in the middle of the room and looking around for a while, which end with "...and there's an ogre standing right in front of you!"
What I do these days is to prepare a sheet of paper that lists each room. For rooms with no encounters in them the sheet just indicates that I can read the "box text" description of the room. For rooms with encounters, I write a couple of sentences that give the first impression of the room plus the description of the monster(s)/NPC(s) that are there. Once the combat/encounter is over I can then read the description from the module. It takes a bit of preparation but keeps the action flowing and (especially with my group, who have the collective memory of a goldfish) stops clues in the room description being forgotten during the combat.
The last couple of months I've been using extra maps with concise map notes. The maps are a rough copy of the adventures map or a print out of the map brought back to black and white line rendering.
The notes help me keep track of things like creatures, traps or exceptional features, so I always know I have the most important information on the room from just glancing on the map.
The notes help me keep track of things like creatures, traps or exceptional features, so I always know I have the most important information on the room from just glancing on the map.
Hey, that's a great idea, Vergee. I'd been using seperate pages just as Ridley described, but putting some of that information on a second map sounds like it'd have a hundred uses too. Not the least of which is keeping track of the effects of loud noises. I shall start using this idea immediately and will call them my "Vergee Maps".
|
Contributor
|
What I usually do (and the pre-made's are good about this) is check the room name and see if it has that nasty little (EL X) next to it. If the room has some kind of EL, there's a good chance it's full of something dangerous. Then I'll check for stats or monster listings, then sketch out large objects and place monsters.
The detailed read-aloud comes once combat's done, or at least monsters are placed.
|
|
Boxed text is one of those things that has a tendency to have its focus lost.
What boxed text is supposed to do is provide a very short, very simple, summary of the terrain, suitable for the players to be able to make tactical decisions, and then interpret the map. (The various symbols used and such.)
That is all.
Boxed text is not supposed to be a detailed description of every box and bump in a room.
Boxed text is not supposed to be an exercise in adjectival excess. That does not mean you can not have any flavor in it, but it should not even be half of a Tolkien or Lovecraft exposition.
Boxed text is not supposed to an exercise in exposition. The players are supposed to be play the adventure, not be lectured at by the DM.
Boxed text is not supposed to be longer than one of these sections, and should preferably be smaller, simply because people will lose focus the longer the exposition is.
Taken in combination, as strange as it may seem, that means monster descriptions are typically not included.
Why?
Well, the monsters could be hiding, they could be disguised, they could be intended as an interactive challenge, or they simply should have their description set apart for reasons others have noted.
Note that the default descriptions for creatures in the Monster Manual is a very standard default. Over time, a player with system mastery should be able to identify any monster just from that default text. That can often be another reason not to use it, even though that is part of the intent of presenting it.
What does that mean about telling the players about what monsters are present, or how an interview with an NPC goes?
It means those things are for the DM to provide, and the players to interact with. Think of every boxed text ending with two note:
"Insert your monster description here."
"Ask your players what they want to do, and play out the resolution with them."
One final note; if there is a lot of information you want to give players, such as a mission briefing or extended background, try to write it out for them. While they "should" be paying attention or taking their own notes people realy prefer to be playing. Having to take dictation is not something most people consider part of a fun game.
Related to that is expecting the players to play 20 Questions with a patron to get critical details of a mission the patron presumably wants them to accomplish. The players should never be asking "Why didn't he warn us about this?" with you replying "He would have if you had asked."
Related to that is expecting the players to play 20 Questions with a patron to get critical details of a mission the patron presumably wants them to accomplish. The players should never be asking "Why didn't he warn us about this?" with you replying "He would have if you had asked."
I've noticed some funny habits that have come out of this, particularly in Living adventures.
My friend Rhett always asks, regardless of his character, the following two questions of the patron: (1) Do you have any enemies that you haven't told us about? and (2) Do you have any magic items that you could loan us to get this important task done?
My friend Greg, tired of the "20 Questions" game, simply says, "I pose him an open-ended question that invites him to share any crucial bits of information he has not yet divulged."
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I certainly have my own requirements for what can and cannot be in a read-aloud text block for a room... the two big NO NOs are:
1: Do not imply action on the PC's part. Never include the word "you" in read-aloud text. Be it a relatively minor "You look over to the far door," to a more egregious "You step into the cage and the door swings shut, trapping you inside," read-aloud text should NEVER NEVER EVER tell the players what their characters do.
2: Do not include monsters in read-aloud text, unless the monster is 99% of the time in the same position, and even then, only include the monster if it seems to be part of the room (such as a mimic or a golem hiding as a statue). Why's this? Because it's the reverse of #1 above. You should never imply MONSTER action in read-aloud text as well, since the read-aloud text doesn't know what the PCs did just before they entered the room. If the room's bugbear inhabitants hide upon hearing someone trying to get through their locked door, that can be ruined by describing the bugbears in the read-aloud text as "sitting at a table playing Snap-Rats."
The main reason we put a Creature entry in encounters, and why we bold-face the word "CREATURE" at the start, is to give the GM a quick visual cue that there are monsters involved in the encounter, so that when he describes the room, he knows to keep the inhabitants in mind so that he can add them to the description's end, or incorporate them into the description as he sees fit.
EDIT: Oh, here's a third rule.
3: Read-aloud text for a room description should exceed a paragraph ONLY RARELY, and even then that's not great. The best read-aloud text is 2 to 4 sentences long, something a GM can read in about 15 seconds. There's not much worse than listening to a GM read a page long room description. Alas... unlike 1 and 2 above... this rule's harder to adhere to.
I’ve a theory about boxed text. Presumably, the most memorable aspects of the room are described last to leave the lasting impression on the players that they should have (what, with those things being the most memorable aspects and all.) The irony, of course, is that then the room description consists of the PCs looking at all the minor, insignificant stuff before noticing the big bubbling cauldron sitting in the middle (or whatever). That’s pretty funny too.
|
|
"The walls are clad in dark-stained hardwoods, with brass accoutrements and the brightly colored cushions scattered around the floor look like the throw-cushions used by the nomads of the Gaminan Gnomish Highlands, and, oh yes, there's also a MIND FLAYER EATING YOUR FACE!"
"I stop appraising the decor and draw my sword..."
3: Read-aloud text for a room description should exceed a paragraph ONLY RARELY, and even then that's not great. The best read-aloud text is 2 to 4 sentences long, something a GM can read in about 15 seconds. There's not much worse than listening to a GM read a page long room description. Alas... unlike 1 and 2 above... this rule's harder to adhere to.
How would you handle Syntira (Carnival of Tears) 1/3+ page box text?
-- david
Papa-DRB
Grognard
My better half and me
|
|
3: Read-aloud text for a room description should exceed a paragraph ONLY RARELY, and even then that's not great. The best read-aloud text is 2 to 4 sentences long, something a GM can read in about 15 seconds. There's not much worse than listening to a GM read a page long room description. Alas... unlike 1 and 2 above... this rule's harder to adhere to.
I couldn't agree more. I'm currently finishing off a campaign produced by another company before I kick off RotRL. At our last session one of my players commented, "The author really likes writing long descriptions, doesn't he?" Suddenly it struck me that everywhere the party went I was reading out 1-2 minutes of "boxed text" description. I'm now determined to keep it short and to the point, whilst dropping enough clues to things the party should be investigating further.
Thankfully, it's an issue that doesn't seem to be a problem with RotRL. Keep it up!
|
Creative Director
|
How would you handle Syntira (Carnival of Tears) 1/3+ page box text?
Read-aloud text that's an NPC telling a story or giving some sort of monologue is in a different category than room description read-aloud text. In theory, dialogue like this is more engaging since the GM is acting out an NPC's role, and that's actually a lot easier for PCs to spend more time listening to than just area descriptions. Nonetheless... when I have an NPC giving a long monologue, I try to have that monologue interrupted by points where the PCs get to ask questions or otherwise do stuff before the NPC continues. One trick I use often is to list a number of probable PC questions and the NPC's likely answers. This turns a straight GM monologue into an interactive scene.
That said... for long NPC monologues, I prefer to have them ONLY be monologues. I try to have area descriptions remain shorter and occur earlier, separating the description from the monologue with some GM-only text. If only to encourage the GM to not sit there and read half his adventure out to the players.
|
|
I've noticed some funny habits that have come out of this, particularly in Living adventures.
My friend Rhett always asks, regardless of his character, the following two questions of the patron: (1) Do you have any enemies that you haven't told us about? and (2) Do you have any magic items that you could loan us to get this important task done?
My friend Greg, tired of the "20 Questions" game, simply says, "I pose him an open-ended question that invites him to share any crucial bits of information he has not yet divulged."
I use a similar technique, generally an in-character statement along the lines of "Is there any other information, critical to the success of this mission, that you would like to share with us so we can complete your task to our mutual satisfaction?"
I use a similar technique, generally an in-character statement along the lines of "Is there any other information, critical to the success of this mission, that you would like to share with us so we can complete your task to our mutual satisfaction?"
I guess I understand the intent, but come on. You're short-cutting half the reason of playing a roleplaying game. That's a bit like entering a combat and saying "It's an ECL 4 encounter, so let's assume everyone take 3d6 points of damage and cross off 3 charges of a wand or 1 potion and we can move on to the next room."
Although it's thankfully never come up in any of my games, I'm sure that any attempt from my players to try the "what do you have written down to tell us?" gambit would get a "what do you mean?" response from the NPC they're talking to.
I use a similar technique, generally an in-character statement along the lines of "Is there any other information, critical to the success of this mission, that you would like to share with us so we can complete your task to our mutual satisfaction?"I guess I understand the intent, but come on. You're short-cutting half the reason of playing a roleplaying game. That's a bit like entering a combat and saying "It's an ECL 4 encounter, so let's assume everyone take 3d6 points of damage and cross off 3 charges of a wand or 1 potion and we can move on to the next room."
Although it's thankfully never come up in any of my games, I'm sure that any attempt from my players to try the "what do you have written down to tell us?" gambit would get a "what do you mean?" response from the NPC they're talking to.
True, but this doesn't apply to a character who would ask these kinds of questions. Say for instance a hard-core buisness man kind of adventurer who likes to be able to plan everything out. In some adventures I've played I wished I thought about going to some sort of archive to find a map of the buildings or dungeons I went through. It's realy not a bad idea, even in a fantasy world there would be blueprints for larger constructs.
Oh, and perhaps you suspect the NPC of holding something back, or that he's leading you on a wild goose chase. Then that question would be an exellent choice and would not take away any of the reason for playing RPGs.
I certainly have my own requirements for what can and cannot be in a read-aloud text block for a room...
Definitely agree with rule 1 (as I have heard it mocked often enough when it shows up in eg. computer games).
With rule 2...well, I have run numerous games in different languages and even in English I usually don't like too florid prose, so most of the time nowadays I make up my own "read aloud" parts. And the way I usually do it is based on what would a guy opening a door first see (and would notice).Order in average dungeon crawl, assuming some kind of adrenaline haze, is something like this:
1. rough estimate on room dimensions
2. Big fixtures and moving things (any larger monsters who are not actively hiding, big statues and altars, clearly visible pools of acid etc)
3. Smaller moving things and things which make noise (small monsters not actively and successfully hiding, operating machinery etc)
4. Other (visible exits, more exact room dimension for the cartographer, nice painting on the wall, discarded sword in the corner, fresco on the ceiling)
Hiding things are revealed only when they spring up.
First two things are always said, and if people choose to quickly react to that huge big dragon (point two), spotting a grandfather clock and a little goblin behind it requires a spot check or specific mention of looking for something. Same goes for reacting to that little goblin, spot check is needed to notice the sword in the corner.
|
|
I guess I understand the intent, but come on. You're short-cutting half the reason of playing a roleplaying game. That's a bit like entering a combat and saying "It's an ECL 4 encounter, so let's assume everyone take 3d6 points of damage and cross off 3 charges of a wand or 1 potion and we can move on to the next room."
Although it's thankfully never come up in any of my games, I'm sure that any attempt from my players to try the "what do you have written down to tell us?" gambit would get a "what do you mean?" response from the NPC they're talking to.
The intent is to avoid situations where the author has written:
"If the PCs ask about any of the following . . ."and the DM decides that because I did not hit a particular trigger word or phrasing in one of the questions, he will not relay the information to me, no matter how important it is.
A closer approximation would be entering combat with the DM saying there are five creatures, I decide to charge one, and then the DM says they are all hydras, I charged the furthest one, and he is going to take 40 attacks of opportunity on me.
Also, why is this not role-playing?
What if my character is a blunt, to the point, type of guy who just wants the facts?
Also, why is this not role-playing?
What if my character is a blunt, to the point, type of guy who just wants the facts?
The only way this qualifies as roleplaying is if your blunt, to-the-point type of guy PC only encounters honest, forthcoming NPCs. It may be in your PC’s character to do that, but if the DM is just throwing his hands up and having his NPCs just blab out everything in bullet form then he’s not roleplaying. In the end, you get all the facts, but you don’t come away with any connection to the NPC: no annoyance at the nobleman for treating you like lackeys, no suspicion of the church elder who hesitates when giving evidence, and no chance of future recognition of the NPC outside of his name and a likely needed reminder of where you met him before.
I ain’t saying you’re playing wrong. If you guys don’t get any fun out of the negotiations then it’s very reasonable to cut them like you do. But I won’t say that you’re roleplaying when you do it.
|
What if my character is a blunt, to the point, type of guy who just wants the facts?
Then it becomes a fantasy version of Law and Order, where you try to decide if the blunt answer you get from the NPC is truthful because ti was so easily given, and you can be more duped by the bad guy (I'd normally throw a 'bad guys hires the unknowing PCs, giving them false info' adventure in when I hit one of those PCs)
I certainly have my own requirements for what can and cannot be in a read-aloud text block for a room... the two big NO NOs are:
1: Do not imply action on the PC's part. Never include the word "you" in read-aloud text. Be it a relatively minor "You look over to the far door," to a more egregious "You step into the cage and the door swings shut, trapping you inside," read-aloud text should NEVER NEVER EVER tell the players what their characters do.
I can see why this is sound practice for writing product, but I almost always use "YOU" when actually describing things to my players, to put them more viscerally into the game. I just find "You're sitting quietly around the camp site when you hear a sound like a twig snap in the darkness behind you," is better for getting players in character than "Hoban is sitting quietly around the camp site when he hears a sound like a twig snap in the darkness behind him."
It's more direct. More visceral. These things are happening directly to the player, not to the plastic mini in front of her.
Don't most DMs run this way?
|
Creative Director
|
I can see why this is sound practice for writing product, but I almost always use "YOU" when actually describing things to my players, to put them more viscerally into the game. I just find "You're sitting quietly around the camp site when you hear a sound like a twig snap in the darkness behind you," is better for getting players in character than "Hoban is sitting quietly around the camp site when he hears a sound like a twig snap in the darkness behind him."
It's more direct. More visceral. These things are happening directly to the player, not to the plastic mini in front of her.
Don't most DMs run this way?
The difference here is that "You're sitting quetly around the campsite when you hear a sound," isn't really boxed text for an encounter that's about to occur. It's the result of a Listen check. In this case, you can use 2nd person to describe what's going on because you CAN assume player action... they've already made the listen check.
Starting an encounter out with read-aloud text like that is not as good, since it assumes that the PCs are camping, assumes that they make their Listen checks, assumes they lit a camp fire, assumes they didn't fill the surrounding region with everburning torches and light magic, etc. Even if the assumptions in read-aloud text are safe for the majority of groups... it's better to develop read-aloud text that is safe for ALL groups.
2: Do not include monsters in read-aloud text, unless the monster is 99% of the time in the same position, and even then, only include the monster if it seems to be part of the room (such as a mimic or a golem hiding as a statue).
I don't agree. Here's why... The flavor text is a snippet of time in that room as if the party opened the door without alerting the monsters, so yes, the monster should be included in it. It is the responsibility of all GMs to adjust the flavor text as per the situation in the game as it occurs. It's simply too easy to forget a monster that isn't listed in the flavor text.
--Ray.
|
Creative Director
|
2: Do not include monsters in read-aloud text, unless the monster is 99% of the time in the same position, and even then, only include the monster if it seems to be part of the room (such as a mimic or a golem hiding as a statue).I don't agree. Here's why... The flavor text is a snippet of time in that room as if the party opened the door without alerting the monsters, so yes, the monster should be included in it. It is the responsibility of all GMs to adjust the flavor text as per the situation in the game as it occurs. It's simply too easy to forget a monster that isn't listed in the flavor text.
--Ray.
In that case... what do we assume? Do we assume that the PCs enter when the monsters are awake or asleep? When the complex is on full alert, half alert, or no alert? That the monsters themselves can observe the PCs or not?
Including monsters pretty much guarantees that a significant portion of GMs will need to "redo" the read-aloud text or back up and correct himself in game, whereas boxed text that simply presents the basics of the room guarantees that this won't happen. GMs should be familiar with an encounter before they run it anyway, and as I mention above... if the encounter doesn't have a creature entry (or if the encounter title doesn't have an EL listed), adding in monsters after you describe the initial scene is simple enough.
Of course... not including monsters in read-aloud text mostly boils down to my personal preference. I hate when an adventure includes monsters in the text for the various reasons I've listed here. THAT SAID: If enough of Pathfinder's readers prefer monsters in their read-aloud text, I'll consider changing the policy. It'll have to be a LOT of people requesting that, though... :-)
|
|
The only way this qualifies as roleplaying is if your blunt, to-the-point type of guy PC only encounters honest, forthcoming NPCs. It may be in your PC’s character to do that, but if the DM is just throwing his hands up and having his NPCs just blab out everything in bullet form then he’s not roleplaying. In the end, you get all the facts, but you don’t come away with any connection to the NPC: no annoyance at the nobleman for treating you like lackeys, no suspicion of the church elder who hesitates when giving evidence, and no chance of future recognition of the NPC outside of his name and a likely needed reminder of where you met him before.
I ain’t saying you’re playing wrong. If you guys don’t get any fun out of the negotiations then it’s very reasonable to cut them like you do. But I won’t say that you’re roleplaying when you do it.
You are making a whole lot of assumptions there.
1. You assume that I take, for my PC, everything at face value, without ever asking for a Sense Motive check (or relying on the "insightful" character to cover it) or judging the tone and content of the DM's presentation directly.2. You assume, as from before, that the NPC might really be stupid enough not to give me the name of the informant I am supposed to meet just because I did not ask him.
3. You assume that the DM does not present the material in character at all.
4. You assume that I, or any player at the table, will enjoy playing secretary, and writing everything down rather than relying on our memories. That includes a related assumption that it would be in-character to write such notes during a meeting with an important person. "Oh no, you keep talking your majesty, I am just making notes." That should make a proper impression!
5. You assume that there is no room for additional questions and answers.
6. You assume negotiations are fun when there are major negative consequences for forgetting to ask a minor question.
Overall, that is a lot of assumptions to make off of the simple statement that having been burned by DMs withholding critical information because I did not use the proper trigger word I make a general request for all vital information, and the equally general statement that having seen others not have fun because of that I encourage the use of handouts containing such vital information.
A lot of times when you review material your focus is not on how the good DMs and focused players will use the material, but how the lousy DMs and vaguely present players use it. A published product has to be functional for 5,000 or more groups. That requires a lot of different planning.
|
|
Then it becomes a fantasy version of Law and Order, where you try to decide if the blunt answer you get from the NPC is truthful because ti was so easily given, and you can be more duped by the bad guy (I'd normally throw a 'bad guys hires the unknowing PCs, giving them false info' adventure in when I hit one of those PCs)
You would use a grudge encounter just because the PCs do not play the way you want them too?
That sounds great for a webcomic like Fear the Boot.For a regular campaign, players will either not bother, or just start planning to betray every patron first.
Yes, an unreliable patron can happen. Past a certain point though, it is a more appropriate trope for Shadowrun, Call of Cthulu, or some other conspiracy based game. It is not appropriate as a constant for most D&D settings.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Yes, an unreliable patron can happen. Past a certain point though, it is a more appropriate trope for Shadowrun, Call of Cthulu, or some other conspiracy based game. It is not appropriate as a constant for most D&D settings.
Howdy, Samuel.
I'd like to think that D&D is versatile enough to handle a "Shadowrun-like" campaign. That may well be what Kirstov and his players like.
It sounds like we have a "Law and Order" versus "Dragnet" trope. Do PC's struggle to get to the actual truth of the matter, or do witnesses feel it is their duty to tell-the-party-everything-it-needs-to-know-in-quick-bursts-of-data? (Otherwise known as "boxed text"?)
Back to the original question about room descriptions: if there's a combat encounter in the room, I require the PC's to make a Spot check (DC varies, typically between 10 and 25) to notice anything useful in a room until they either (a) finish the combat or (b) take a round just to look around. If a feral umber hulk is chewing on your arm, you may not notice that it came from a 30-by-35 foot room with an raised platform in the back corner.
You are making a whole lot of assumptions there.
I also assume:
7. It works for you.
If so, have fun with it. I just hope my players never start taking things for granted like that.
|
|
You would use a grudge encounter just because the PCs do not play the way you want them too?
That sounds great for a webcomic like Fear the Boot.
For a regular campaign, players will either not bother, or just start planning to betray every patron first.Yes, an unreliable patron can happen. Past a certain point though, it is a more appropriate trope for Shadowrun, Call of Cthulu, or some other conspiracy based game. It is not appropriate as a constant for most D&D settings.
Reliability comes in many forms... the patron who is reliable to his goals may not be reliable to the PCs goals. I make a 3 page minimum history of the patron and their goals, and I keep their responses true to that information. (even to the point of signing and dating any changes to that history, and highlighting the parts that the party knows, so that I don't accidentally change something they know, and they can see that what they were told has not changed). even true and LG patrons may have a reason not to tell the whole truth unless the right question is asked (something in their family history or something outside the bounds of the laws that might damage the honor of their kingdom or subjects)
Back to the original question about room descriptions: if there's a combat encounter in the room, I require the PC's to make a Spot check (DC varies, typically between 10 and 25) to notice anything useful in a room until they either (a) finish the combat or (b) take a round just to look around. If a feral umber hulk is chewing on your arm, you may not notice that it came from a 30-by-35 foot room with an raised platform in the back corner.
One of the first things you learn when training for any martial art is situational awareness. You are trained to take the time to look around mid fight to find things such as: other opponents, places you can use terrain or objects to your advantage. for anyone who has formal training in fighting with a weapon, this should give at least a bonus to these spot checks. Just food for thought.
2: Do not include monsters in read-aloud text, unless the monster is 99% of the time in the same position, and even then, only include the monster if it seems to be part of the room (such as a mimic or a golem hiding as a statue).I don't agree. Here's why... The flavor text is a snippet of time in that room as if the party opened the door without alerting the monsters, so yes, the monster should be included in it. It is the responsibility of all GMs to adjust the flavor text as per the situation in the game as it occurs. It's simply too easy to forget a monster that isn't listed in the flavor text.
--Ray.
But if I'm going to have to butcher the flavour text anyway why make it so that I'm forced to hum and haw while skipping over sentences because they don't apply. Sure its the responsibility of the DM to deal with changes to the flavour text but no one is doing the DM any favours by including flavour text that has a good chance of being simply inaccurate.
Better to twig the DM on to the fact that this room probably have a monster and let the DM deal with the monster flavour text 'cause their just to variable. Chances are the wall drape is there no matter what else the players are doing but the Ogre Guards are going to be acting differently if their spied on by a hiding Ninja and have no clue that there are invaders or if the party has stopped in front of the door and just spent three rounds loudly casting buff spells. In most cases there is no hope that the flavour text can handle the vagaries of what the players are doing because different groups approach this in a very different way.
I also generally agree with the rather odd design of flavour text where the background is dealt with and then the main attractions are put in the forefront. My feeling is this is because, ultimately, we are involved in a story telling game and one gets better results, usually, if one sets the scene before giving away the climax.
Your choosing between two basic options. You can tell the players the exciting stuff first and then tell them about the rest of the scene or you can tell them about the scene and then tell them the exciting stuff. If you tell them the exciting stuff first their going to want to react but they can't until you finish describing the scene. If you build up, starting with the scene then, once you get to Mind Flayer your done - its their turn and they can immediately tell you what they plan on doing about the Mind Flayer.
Seems like basic story telling technique to me with a role playing twist. You build to a climax and once you hit the high note the players can immediately jump in with how they want to handle it.
|
|
A variety of replies:
Yes, D&D could handle a Shadowrun campaign.
If a specific product is written with that in mind, obviously players will expect different things going in.
No, this is not actually a Law and Order situation. At least not the way being suggested. A patron is not a witness. He is the DA sending the police out to find someone, or the police reporting to the DA. If either withholds vital information, the case will not be solved or successfully prosecuted. Engaging in an adversarial Q&A session will guarantee that failure.
As for background and development of NPCs, that is all well and good for a DM doing his home campaign. These comments I am making are in regards to published adventures, which can often barely spare three paragraphs for an NPCs background, let alone three pages.
Naturally if someone has additional motivations they should not appear in such a briefing sheet. Indeed they should appear nowhere near the general encounter presentation to avoid accidental over-reading by the DM.
But if I'm going to have to butcher the flavour text anyway why make it so that I'm forced to hum and haw while skipping over sentences because they don't apply. Sure its the responsibility of the DM to deal with changes to the flavour text but no one is doing the DM any favours by including flavour text that has a good chance of being simply inaccurate.
Simple answer here. Read then speak. No butchering required. :) It's better to skip over text that no longer applies (read: the party set off all of the alarms in the dungeon) then to miss important information. Granted, it's much harder to miss monsters these days with those insane stat blocks. :)
Better to twig the DM on to the fact that this room probably have a monster and let the DM deal with the monster flavour text 'cause their just to variable. Chances are the wall drape is there no matter what else the players are doing but the Ogre Guards are going to be acting differently if their spied on by a hiding Ninja and have no clue that there are invaders or if the party has stopped in front of the door and just spent three rounds loudly casting buff spells. In most cases there is no hope that the flavour text can handle the vagaries of what the players are doing because different groups approach this in a very different way.
You're correct! Paizo should remove all references to wall drapes and send in the Pirates! :) Yes, monsters are the variables in the mix but it's good to set the variables to begin the encounter. If the GM wants to change it then so be it.
I also generally agree with the rather odd design of flavour text where the background is dealt with and then the main attractions are put in the forefront. My feeling is this is because, ultimately, we are involved in a story telling game and one gets better results, usually, if one sets the scene before giving away the climax.
Very true. I often have two sets of flavor text when I write a module. One for the "open door, see monster."; and another for the aftermath.
--Ray.
In that case... what do we assume? Do we assume that the PCs enter when the monsters are awake or asleep? When the complex is on full alert, half alert, or no alert? That the monsters themselves can observe the PCs or not?
The answer is author's choice. If the GM needs to change it, they will.
Including monsters pretty much guarantees that a significant portion of GMs will need to "redo" the read-aloud text or back up and correct himself in game, whereas boxed text that simply presents the basics of the room guarantees that this won't happen. GMs should be familiar with an encounter before they run it anyway, and as I mention above... if the encounter doesn't have a creature entry (or if the encounter title doesn't have an EL listed), adding in monsters after you describe the initial scene is simple enough.
The opposite is also true for the other 50% of GMs. Remember the GM isn't always looking at the module. They are interacting with the players. It's really easy to forget details in that situation. I'm always making the gaming experience the best that it can be. Anything that will make it easier is a good thing so including the monsters in the flavor text helps me considerably.
Of course... not including monsters in read-aloud text mostly boils down to my personal preference. I hate when an adventure includes monsters in the text for the various reasons I've listed here. THAT SAID: If enough of Pathfinder's readers prefer monsters in their read-aloud text, I'll consider changing the policy. It'll have to be a LOT of people requesting that, though... :-)
Glad to hear you're open to putting them back. :)
--Ray.
|
|
The opposite is also true for the other 50% of GMs. Remember the GM isn't always looking at the module. They are interacting with the players. It's really easy to forget details in that situation.
You hit it right there:
Half of the time a DM is distracted and is just reading the text verbatim. He has to remember to redact the description while so distracted. That makes including the monster a bad idea half the time right from the start.Add in the times the situation changes due to player actions, then the times the DM actively changes things to personalize an adventure, and soon it soon becomes a minority of times that noting an inhabitant is relevant.
That is why I am pleased with the boxed text open, so i can add in creature descriptions as needed.
The opposite is also true for the other 50% of GMs. Remember the GM isn't always looking at the module. They are interacting with the players. It's really easy to forget details in that situation. I'm always making the gaming experience the best that it can be. Anything that will make it easier is a good thing so including the monsters in the flavor text helps me considerably.
Often the monster is hidden or disguised in some way - reallying on the flavour text as a reminder that there is something of importance in the room does not strike me as a particularly useful solution to a distracted DM situation. If you come to rely on the flavour text telling you whats important about a room your going to really screw up encounters where the monster or trap is not clear and obvious to the players from the get go.
Also trying to throw monsters into the flavour text encourages adventure designers to create static adventures so that the flavour text applies and I'd like to see adventure design continue to evolve (its come a long way since 1st edition), so far as possible, into a more interactive direction.
The style of adventure design where the creatures stand there in stasis waiting for the players to 'trigger' them can be useful when the DM wants to show off an interesting scene (Adventurers ambush the half ogre while he's in the privy for example).
However I'd much prefer to see adventure design continue to evolve so that creatures are more proactive about adventurers showing up and trashing their residence unless the scene one gets from a 'triggered' encounter is either really cool or adds to the story/plot. I think any kind of general requirement to include monsters into the flavour text essentially encourages bad adventure design and if its on again off again then its not useful as a reminder and, in my opinion, actually increases the likelihood of the DM tripping up on something.
If one needs more of a reminder that there is a monster in a room then whats already provided you could highlight the rooms or use sticky notes or something. I think something like this is a much more certain way of reminding the DM that there is something important in the room compared to depending on the flavour text to remind you when some of the time its not possible to include the monster in the flavour text in any case.