I think this format would struggle with diverse points of interest that can't be easily grouped together. It works in a room full of statues, but what about a room with a well, graffiti on the south wall, and a discarded bird cage?
It's hard to fully address how well this room does its job because I'm unsure if you would have an initial section where you are describing basic dungeon construction. If not, I'd really want to know things like what these statues are made out of. Your initial description in the prior post also made it a bit more clear that it would be obvious to a person with the right background that these statues originally depicted individuals that weren't Turms Termax.
Personally, I'd tend towards including clues in the actual construction of the statues that these replacements have occurred. A difference in the color or texture of heads versus the rest of the body. This would presumably be even more pronounced with Sarana, whose entire statue would presumably have been constructed at the same time as the heads were replaced.
Pages references would also be useful. Like knowing the page where Turms Termax is discussed in case I have forgotten the finer details, or if there is another location where the removable heads might be a factor.
Now, as to what needs to be listed since the map displays certain information. I actually disagree with some others commenting in that I like when exits are listed in the key because I personally always forget to tell my players exits and the reminder within the key is quite helpful. I would also add that including directional arrows in addition to cardinal directions can be useful for reducing cognitive load with a price paid of only 3 characters each. Such things being listed in the key is especially useful if you don't include a mini-map on each spread that you can reference when also referencing the key.
Speaking of things being shown on the map, one thing I am unsure of based on your example key is where Sarana's statue is. I am assuming it is the one in the northeast corner, but it isn't entirely clear from the text.
These are all very good points and many of them are ones I struggle with as well. Ultimately, the big question I'm trying to resolve is: how much information is too much information? Similarly, at what point does detail get in the way of ease of use? There are many things that don't need to be conveyed if you're the one who created something, but what if you're writing for someone else?
My own notes for running an adventure or locale are short. often cryptic, because I already know what I mean by them. I doubt anyone else could use them profitably, though. So much of what I draw upon to run a dungeon or scenario is in my head and I don't write it down.
Yes, I understand. When it is your own work, you already know the type of stone, the method the head was replaced, etc. You can respond to PC actions quite easily as a result.
But as you said, writing for others is different. When I look at a room in that context, I always try to consider the most likely ways that players will interact with this room and if where they are located within the room will potentially matter. You are right that you can't pile on detail after detail without impacting usability, so to me it makes sense to try to anticipate the most relevant information GMs may need to know and identify whether that information needs to be present in the key, located elsewhere but page referenced, or left to GM improvisation.
So looking at your room through that lens, it seems likely that players will investigate the statues and they will expect a GM to be able to go into greater detail when they do so. They might want to know how much the statues are worth, whether they can be toppled (potentially useful in a combat context) or carried out of the dungeon. I don't have to explicitly address all of those possibilities, but right now if I am running this I am potentially having to make a lot of rulings that might actually contradict details in other rooms. If there are a lot of statues of similar construction scattered throughout the dungeon, a general Dungeon Construction section at the beginning could save you from having to constantly repeat yourself from key to key.
Also, because of the size of the room, the positions of PCs is going to matter so I need to know which specific statue is Sarana's because if I roll an Encounter while PCs are busy interacting with different statues it might make sense for the patrol to be approaching from 63 versus 3. If you wanted to save on key space, you could label the statues with a letter (A-F) so that the GM can more easily keep track of where everyone is in case it becomes relevant.
Anyway, the struggle is real. I'm in the middle of revising my first dungeon for publication, as opposed to simply editing ones that others have written, and there's a price to be paid for every approach.
I like the separation of first impressions and details. The exits is an excellent touch with the directions and connections. Maybe the type of exit? Door, archway, secret, concealed, etc.?
I don’t agree with where the exits lead needing to be detailed, as the ref has access to the map. But the information on the door material or more info on the room would be more relevant.
Yeah labeled exits make far more sense if the map isn't simple. This map is, but all you need is a single cross map connection. Im thinking like the well from rappan athuk or any hidden slopes that move to a sublevel and thefore can't be shown on a map, or teleporter, or disapering doors, or teleporters, or moving hallways.
I like the "first impressions" section. It felt very easy to read. I want to be told the most important things in the room right away. I hate how so many dungeons are far too wordy, or are abstract and recursive like code. I think it's fine if it's aimed at DMs who can fill in details.
Of course, would like to see it with a monster, a treasure, a trap, a secret door... Perhaps in their own sections, or labeled in some way to scan for them easily, rather than needing to read everything to get the gist.
I agree with others that the "exits" section feels superfluous. It's also a potential source of errors.
What about environmental features? In the last post you described the dust.
This is the entrance so it’s our first encounter with the air, the kind of floor, walls and ceiling height. As a referee, I would use those details to help ground the players in the space.
The refinement fronts important information. I appreciate the exits being noted here.
I don't think the concern about other types of rooms is necessarily warranted... a template like this could be extended or modified for other types of information without fundamentally differing in design.
As a referee, I don't think the presented First Impressions work. They seem more like details to me. I want the text of the First Impressions section to help me quickly set the scene and get my players imagining the entire space. Ideally, I'd like this general description of the area to include at least one sense other than sight (what they hear, feel, smell, etc.). I would also want it to be concise, maybe 50 words at the most, but it doesn't have to be broken into bullet points. A short paragraph is fine for me.
I would like the Details section to be things that the players can investigate or interact with. Ideally these things would have been briefly noted or hinted at in the First Impressions description. Each detail should also be no more than 50 words, but they can often be much less, and each detail should either be its own paragraph or it could be a bullet point item. Formatting (bold text, maybe) should make it easy for the referee to quickly identify the specific detail each of the items in this section covers.
For me, the Exits section depends so much on how the group handles mapping. If they are drawing a map, then the various doors and hallways can simply be described as part of the mapping info. If they are given a map (even if the rooms are only revealed once entered), then listing the exits is moot since they'll already be on the map. Otherwise, I would simply want the First Impressions to include something like: "there are doors to the north, south, east, and west and there is a hallway to the north with stairs leading up." As a referee, I have no problem looking at the map to understand where the exits lead, and would prefer not to have this in the text. However, if it is included, then be careful to include the exit from which the characters would mostly likely have entered the room.
I hope I'm hitting the kinds of things you're looking for, James. If not, sorry! :)
Seeing this a second time I find myself with questions about the room and not knowing if the answers should be here or elsewhere in the dungeon or world setting. What knowledge of Turms or Sarana would player characters have? Is there general lore the GM should be able to provide from other sources or should it be referenced here? Does the dress of the statues imply the originals would be recognizable and does the GM have those answers? The room presents an interesting puzzle but in the limited scope of the example its hard to know what info is missing that a GM might need explicitly attached to the room or specifically provided as external references, or whether the meanings are entirely for the GM to create. I remain in favour of the overall presentation approach, I’m just questioning what other data needs to be present to make the room description most useful for the GM.
This is phenomenal! I love the breakout of first impressions and then details.
As a GM for going on 20 years, I would love most adventures to break out their rooms like this. I'm aware that it might take up more space on the paper, but that's OK with me. It makes it easier to run and then having to read a full paragraph and re-order it all in my head.
If you were looking to save space, I don't think you need the exits as long as your map clearly indicates where the exits are.
I do think I like them being there, but I could see how listing every exit in every room could take up a lot of space and is a lower priority.
If these points are for playing purposes only, the exits section is redundant: the map already outline the doors. Another point is that the exits could be part of the first impression (which should be the description of what is easily detectable at a first glance...) and in this case it'd be only two doors because when a character enter the room can hardly spot the door at their left and has no chance to see the nothern door.
I like how the separation of first impressions and details are separate as it prevents bleed over. Focusing it down to first, details and exits? The exits part is golden, I'd give where they connect to if they are odd. I was just thinking about this given reading a few messy modules over the years.
I think this format would struggle with diverse points of interest that can't be easily grouped together. It works in a room full of statues, but what about a room with a well, graffiti on the south wall, and a discarded bird cage?
It's hard to fully address how well this room does its job because I'm unsure if you would have an initial section where you are describing basic dungeon construction. If not, I'd really want to know things like what these statues are made out of. Your initial description in the prior post also made it a bit more clear that it would be obvious to a person with the right background that these statues originally depicted individuals that weren't Turms Termax.
Personally, I'd tend towards including clues in the actual construction of the statues that these replacements have occurred. A difference in the color or texture of heads versus the rest of the body. This would presumably be even more pronounced with Sarana, whose entire statue would presumably have been constructed at the same time as the heads were replaced.
Pages references would also be useful. Like knowing the page where Turms Termax is discussed in case I have forgotten the finer details, or if there is another location where the removable heads might be a factor.
Now, as to what needs to be listed since the map displays certain information. I actually disagree with some others commenting in that I like when exits are listed in the key because I personally always forget to tell my players exits and the reminder within the key is quite helpful. I would also add that including directional arrows in addition to cardinal directions can be useful for reducing cognitive load with a price paid of only 3 characters each. Such things being listed in the key is especially useful if you don't include a mini-map on each spread that you can reference when also referencing the key.
Speaking of things being shown on the map, one thing I am unsure of based on your example key is where Sarana's statue is. I am assuming it is the one in the northeast corner, but it isn't entirely clear from the text.
Anyway, food for thought.
These are all very good points and many of them are ones I struggle with as well. Ultimately, the big question I'm trying to resolve is: how much information is too much information? Similarly, at what point does detail get in the way of ease of use? There are many things that don't need to be conveyed if you're the one who created something, but what if you're writing for someone else?
My own notes for running an adventure or locale are short. often cryptic, because I already know what I mean by them. I doubt anyone else could use them profitably, though. So much of what I draw upon to run a dungeon or scenario is in my head and I don't write it down.
Yes, I understand. When it is your own work, you already know the type of stone, the method the head was replaced, etc. You can respond to PC actions quite easily as a result.
But as you said, writing for others is different. When I look at a room in that context, I always try to consider the most likely ways that players will interact with this room and if where they are located within the room will potentially matter. You are right that you can't pile on detail after detail without impacting usability, so to me it makes sense to try to anticipate the most relevant information GMs may need to know and identify whether that information needs to be present in the key, located elsewhere but page referenced, or left to GM improvisation.
So looking at your room through that lens, it seems likely that players will investigate the statues and they will expect a GM to be able to go into greater detail when they do so. They might want to know how much the statues are worth, whether they can be toppled (potentially useful in a combat context) or carried out of the dungeon. I don't have to explicitly address all of those possibilities, but right now if I am running this I am potentially having to make a lot of rulings that might actually contradict details in other rooms. If there are a lot of statues of similar construction scattered throughout the dungeon, a general Dungeon Construction section at the beginning could save you from having to constantly repeat yourself from key to key.
Also, because of the size of the room, the positions of PCs is going to matter so I need to know which specific statue is Sarana's because if I roll an Encounter while PCs are busy interacting with different statues it might make sense for the patrol to be approaching from 63 versus 3. If you wanted to save on key space, you could label the statues with a letter (A-F) so that the GM can more easily keep track of where everyone is in case it becomes relevant.
Anyway, the struggle is real. I'm in the middle of revising my first dungeon for publication, as opposed to simply editing ones that others have written, and there's a price to be paid for every approach.
I wish you luck.
I like the separation of first impressions and details. The exits is an excellent touch with the directions and connections. Maybe the type of exit? Door, archway, secret, concealed, etc.?
I don’t agree with where the exits lead needing to be detailed, as the ref has access to the map. But the information on the door material or more info on the room would be more relevant.
Yeah labeled exits make far more sense if the map isn't simple. This map is, but all you need is a single cross map connection. Im thinking like the well from rappan athuk or any hidden slopes that move to a sublevel and thefore can't be shown on a map, or teleporter, or disapering doors, or teleporters, or moving hallways.
Again, I would really like some idea of the orientation of the statues - in a circle, in a line, etc,
Yeah that can either be super important or not and in this description we have no way of knowing. Good point.
I like the "first impressions" section. It felt very easy to read. I want to be told the most important things in the room right away. I hate how so many dungeons are far too wordy, or are abstract and recursive like code. I think it's fine if it's aimed at DMs who can fill in details.
Of course, would like to see it with a monster, a treasure, a trap, a secret door... Perhaps in their own sections, or labeled in some way to scan for them easily, rather than needing to read everything to get the gist.
I agree with others that the "exits" section feels superfluous. It's also a potential source of errors.
What about environmental features? In the last post you described the dust.
This is the entrance so it’s our first encounter with the air, the kind of floor, walls and ceiling height. As a referee, I would use those details to help ground the players in the space.
I like it.
The refinement fronts important information. I appreciate the exits being noted here.
I don't think the concern about other types of rooms is necessarily warranted... a template like this could be extended or modified for other types of information without fundamentally differing in design.
As a referee, I don't think the presented First Impressions work. They seem more like details to me. I want the text of the First Impressions section to help me quickly set the scene and get my players imagining the entire space. Ideally, I'd like this general description of the area to include at least one sense other than sight (what they hear, feel, smell, etc.). I would also want it to be concise, maybe 50 words at the most, but it doesn't have to be broken into bullet points. A short paragraph is fine for me.
I would like the Details section to be things that the players can investigate or interact with. Ideally these things would have been briefly noted or hinted at in the First Impressions description. Each detail should also be no more than 50 words, but they can often be much less, and each detail should either be its own paragraph or it could be a bullet point item. Formatting (bold text, maybe) should make it easy for the referee to quickly identify the specific detail each of the items in this section covers.
For me, the Exits section depends so much on how the group handles mapping. If they are drawing a map, then the various doors and hallways can simply be described as part of the mapping info. If they are given a map (even if the rooms are only revealed once entered), then listing the exits is moot since they'll already be on the map. Otherwise, I would simply want the First Impressions to include something like: "there are doors to the north, south, east, and west and there is a hallway to the north with stairs leading up." As a referee, I have no problem looking at the map to understand where the exits lead, and would prefer not to have this in the text. However, if it is included, then be careful to include the exit from which the characters would mostly likely have entered the room.
I hope I'm hitting the kinds of things you're looking for, James. If not, sorry! :)
Seeing this a second time I find myself with questions about the room and not knowing if the answers should be here or elsewhere in the dungeon or world setting. What knowledge of Turms or Sarana would player characters have? Is there general lore the GM should be able to provide from other sources or should it be referenced here? Does the dress of the statues imply the originals would be recognizable and does the GM have those answers? The room presents an interesting puzzle but in the limited scope of the example its hard to know what info is missing that a GM might need explicitly attached to the room or specifically provided as external references, or whether the meanings are entirely for the GM to create. I remain in favour of the overall presentation approach, I’m just questioning what other data needs to be present to make the room description most useful for the GM.
This is phenomenal! I love the breakout of first impressions and then details.
As a GM for going on 20 years, I would love most adventures to break out their rooms like this. I'm aware that it might take up more space on the paper, but that's OK with me. It makes it easier to run and then having to read a full paragraph and re-order it all in my head.
If you were looking to save space, I don't think you need the exits as long as your map clearly indicates where the exits are.
I do think I like them being there, but I could see how listing every exit in every room could take up a lot of space and is a lower priority.
If these points are for playing purposes only, the exits section is redundant: the map already outline the doors. Another point is that the exits could be part of the first impression (which should be the description of what is easily detectable at a first glance...) and in this case it'd be only two doors because when a character enter the room can hardly spot the door at their left and has no chance to see the nothern door.
I like how the separation of first impressions and details are separate as it prevents bleed over. Focusing it down to first, details and exits? The exits part is golden, I'd give where they connect to if they are odd. I was just thinking about this given reading a few messy modules over the years.
How they connect is what I left out. Like if there are multiple doors you could have come from and it's unclear.