It is here that I have to make a confession. When constructing a dungeon for my own use, I rarely spend much time stocking the dungeon — it is my least favorite part of the whole process.
In part, this is because I tend to be a more improvisational Referee through the use of Wandering Monster Tables. I like to be surprised. The other is that I just don't like writing room descriptions. When I occasionally do run a module, I find that these descriptions actually get in the way of game play. In fact, I have often gotten critical pieces of information wrong that have affected entire sessions (not that there is anything wrong with that, but it can be frustrating from my side of the screen).
I do have some exciting ideas bubbling up as I continue to mediate upon this adventure; however, I am not excited about putting them down on paper. I don't want to just do this like every other adventure is done and therefore follow a path that frustrates me while I am at the table.
Personally, I prefer a quick reference sheet for my dungeons at the table. Monster stats, treasure, short trap descriptions and a short description of the use of the room (but not of the room itself). However, I am beginning to see that there are some over-arching themes and issues that go well beyond this particular method.
For my own purposes, the quick reference would be enough — I know what the over-arching themes are and can easily improv their impact on any given room or encounter; however, the end user would not.
Therefore, I have a few questions: if I were to produce a .pdf, what would be your preferred method of room descriptions? What would be the most useful way for me to describe these over-arching issues? Do you have an extant example of a module that is easy to use at the table?
5 comments:
Hi Dave!
Love your site, and have been following for a while so I thought I'd say hello :)
I love the above map. I too find stocking my own dungeons a hassle but find myself really liking the discipline it forces me to take. half way through I find my original ideas have melted away and a whole new idea comes into focus.
I do though LOVE to see what other people come up with... so for this particular question you've posed I would like to see a fully described dungeon to see what you come up with!
PB
Regarding room descriptions, I think the medium-light approach James takes in the Dwimmermount samples I've seen is about right. "Stonehell" felt too sparse for my tastes.
As for the map itself, another great piece of work. I love the more natural feel of these maps; they remind me of ones I admired from old ICE MERP modules. My only change would be to impose a hex grid instead of squares, but that's a trivial objection.
I agree with Anthony. I like a little flavor text for each room to help spark my imagination. What was the room used for, and by whom? What items are left behind that point to these two questions?
When I occasionally do run a module, I find that these descriptions actually get in the way of game play. In fact, I have often gotten critical pieces of information wrong that have affected entire sessions (not that there is anything wrong with that, but it can be frustrating from my side of the screen).
I totally feel this too, and in fact it has been something I have been thinking about for a while. I have had a series of posts on this issue:
http://untimately.blogspot.com/2012/04/play-aids.html
http://untimately.blogspot.com/2012/03/opd-modules.html
http://untimately.blogspot.com/2012/01/mnemonic-descriptive-module-text.html
The short story is that I think there is value in a detailed module (with lots of descriptions) to read before play, but that tools to use during play are different and probably should be separate. The one page dungeon format comes closest.
Can the over-arching themes you mentioned be reduced to brief notes? A sentence or two, perhaps?
Post a Comment