Boxed Text

[DangerousPuhson]

I'm going to state my position up front: I like boxed text. I know this goes counter to prevailing opinion, but let me explain.

I think the problem most people have with boxed text stems from a misunderstanding of game process. The current zeitgeist surrounding boxed text was outlined per Courtney Campbell in a post that compares using boxed text vs. not using it:

Here's a contrast between the two styles:

-The Dungeon Master opens the book and reads the passage. He's looking at the book. The players are trying to focus on what he's saying. The players then ask questions. The Dungeon master then must reference blocks of text to find the answers to the questions.

-The Dungeon Master looks at the rooms keywords, then looks up at the players and describes the room in his own words and fashion. When the players investigate, the Dungeon Master then scans the form for keywords (instead of a block of text) to discover what the players find.

I find this rationale specious, not least because there is seemingly no functional difference between the two styles. If I abbreviate both "styles" above, it comes out to this:

Style 1 (Boxed text):
-> DM reads and talks simultaneously ("The Dungeon Master opens the book and reads the passage. He's looking at the book.")
-> Players listen and follow-up ("The players are trying to focus on what he's saying. The players then ask questions.")
-> DM reads and answers ("The Dungeon master then must reference blocks of text to find the answers to the questions.")

- Style 2 (No boxed text):
-> DM reads ("The Dungeon Master looks at the rooms keywords")
-> DM talks ("then looks up at the players and describes the room in his own words and fashion.")
-> Players listen and follow-up ("When the players investigate")
-> DM reads and answers ("the Dungeon Master then scans the form for keywords to discover what the players find")

Do we not see how the processes are the same? Sure we can use crafty words to try and downplay things (is "scanning" not just reading quickly? Does looking at rooms and keywords not also count as "opens the book and reads the passage"? Would the players not "try and listen" to anything the DM says, boxed or no?), but he is still ultimately saying that both processes are identical, time and effort-wise. If anything, not using boxed text is demonstrably worse, because the DM has to read, digest, and then talk, and not do everything at the same time!

What Courtney (and others) I think fail to grasp is that boxed text does not just orient the players to the room, it also orients the DM to it. Not only that, but it bypasses the need for the DM to "digest" the room ahead of time - they can just read and go, learning as they inform. The DM is reading the same text he is giving to the players; he is getting all the same information at the same time. There's also nothing that says keywords can't appear in boxed text - the DM isn't "bolding" his speech; the bolding is just as functional in a box as it is out of one. Keywords are still a thing with boxed text, one does not exclude the other.

I think the problem is that most adventures just don't do it right. The boxed text is too long, or it doesn't tie into the interactivity of the room enough, or it lacks proper keywords/referencing, or it prioritizes the wrong things. This is bad boxed text, but it's not proof that boxed text is bad.

Example to follow (didn't want to get too long and refuse to post up).

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Example - You are seeing these descriptions for the first time. Which of the two rooms below is easier to run as the DM (one boxed text, one not)?

Example 1

Dome-shaped Room (dark, blue marble etched with alien constellations).
Pedestal - holds jagged steel crown upon violet pillow.

Crown - BAZARAK CROWN. White steel, blue and red gemstones (lapis and ruby); worth 10,000gp to dwarves of Venture Mountain (1,000gp otherwise)​

Hunched humanoid in bandages (crouched behind pedestal).

GONFRED (Mummy - MM p.XX); fearful/wary at first, only wants to stop the crown from being stolen, otherwise peaceful. If friendly, will point the party to the secret door in Area 8 - otherwise points the party towards trap in Area 9.​

Door - Heavy-duty reinforced steel. Locked, DC15 (key is in Area 4). Hardness 15, 100hp.

Example 2

This dark, domed room is made of blue marble etched with alien constellations. A pedestal in the middle holds a jagged steel crown resting atop a violet pillow - behind it, a hunched figure draped in blood-stained bandages peers with pinprick eyes. The door opposite is made of heavy-duty reinforced steel.

Crown: White steel, adorned with studs of lapis and ruby - the BAZARAK CROWN (worth 10,000gp to the dwarves of Venture Mountain; 1,000gp to anyone else).
Figure: GONFRED THE MUMMY (MM p.XX) - fearful/wary at first, only wants to stop the crown from being stolen, otherwise peaceful. If friendly, will point the party to the secret door in Area 8 - otherwise points the party towards trap in Area 9.
Door: Locked, DC15 (key is in Area 4). Hardness 15, 100hp.


Notice how both room keys occupy roughly the same page real estate. Notice how one can be dug into immediately, while the other requires reading, digestion, and interpretation. Why is this a bad thing, exactly?

 

[Beoric]

I mostly think point form is harder to screw up. Boxed text can be fine, but usually it isn't, and I'm now in the habit of ignoring it entirely. Wall-of-text boxed text is of course garbage, but I also have issues with purple prose boxed text. If the volume or choice of words get in the way of comprehension, I don't like it.

I prefer a decent, clear language, DM facing explanation of what is in a room, preceded by bullet points or simply worded boxed text that reminds me of what is in the room description. Evocative is better (for both parts), but purple is not.

Also, paging @Agonarchartist, since we are talking about your stuff.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I mostly think point form is harder to screw up. Boxed text can be fine, but usually it isn't, and I'm now in the habit of ignoring it entirely. Wall-of-text boxed text is of course garbage, but I also have issues with purple prose boxed text. If the volume or choice of words get in the way of comprehension, I don't like it.

I prefer a decent, clear language, DM facing explanation of what is in a room, preceded by bullet points or simply worded boxed text that reminds me of what is in the room description. Evocative is better (for both parts), but purple is not.

I put this to you - first, "harder to screw up" can be mitigated by having an editor (or even a well-read friend, a competent one who actually knows what they're doing). An editor will read your boxed text, say "this is too clunky/long/terse/whatever", and you fix it. Publishable adventures are supposed to be edited anyway, so this shouldn't require any extra effort. Everybody wins.

It's also a non-problem if the author just knows what the fuck they're doing (Bryce book when?).

I also put it to you that boxed text is harder to screw up in play (where it counts). DMs without the chops to adequately describe environs now have a tool that will adequately describe the environs, as the author intended it to be communicated. You can't misread or miss anything with boxed text - what's there is there. Boxed text literally makes running the game easier (i.e. harder to screw up).

Second, I claimed above that the main problem is that boxed text is often being done wrong ("I think the problem is that most adventures just don't do it right."); presumably if boxed text is done right, then you don't ignore it, yes? If it isn't a wall of text (as it shouldn't be), and isn't too purple (as it shouldn't be) then your gripes about boxed text largely fall away. Again, I'm not saying all boxed text is good - I'm saying good box text is better than any point-form.

Point-form is great if you personally invented the adventure and already know what's happening; it's fucking terrible for bringing someone up to speed from a baseline of zero. It's like trying to understand a university course's material based solely off somebody else's crib notes for a final exam - you can do it, but good lord will you be spending time deciphering stuff, because those notes were made for someone who is supposed to already know the material. In D&D, that translates directly to dead air while the DM parses, processes, converts, and regurgitates what he's reading. It's far faster to read aloud than to synthesize.

The crux of my thesis is essentially "the DM will in parallel come to learn anything the players learn through boxed text (the player-facing part of the room). They have bullets below the box for their DM-facing information, which is oriented to the boxed text so that the notes actually have context and make sense to the DM, and aren't references floating in a vacuum (what the bullets reference is contextualized right above; no need to decipher anything). This approach better synergizes with the pace of play as the materials are intended to be deployed at the table".

I believe it's far better to just have a piece that is read out right away (that "clear language explanation" you wanted, because boxed text must be clear, except it's not only DM facing) so there's no downtime... then when the party is in-process of choosing a course of action, the DM is checking the bullet points of all the DM-facing stuff for the pertinent follow-up. No downtime. With boxed text, information is disseminated at a pace that matches the "DM -> players -> DM -> players" play sequence; the alternative is a furrowed DM brow as he spends precious descriptive talk-time trying to decipher if the word "pillar" is a mention of consequence or a harmless piece of dressing.

 

[Beoric]

All I'm saying is it is of unreliable quality; arguing that it can be done well (which I agree with!) doesn't speak to the issue that it usually isn't.

Point-form is great if you personally invented the adventure and already know what's happening; it's fucking terrible for bringing someone up to speed from a baseline of zero. It's like trying to understand a university course's material based solely off somebody else's crib notes for a final exam - you can do it, but good lord will you be spending time deciphering stuff, because those notes were made for someone who is supposed to already know the material. In D&D, that translates directly to dead air while the DM parses, processes, converts, and regurgitates what he's reading. It's far faster to read aloud than to synthesize.

I don't agree with this, because the bullet points contain the same information as would be in boxed text, but just separating the concepts from each other in physical space, and losing the (often convoluted) sentence structure. Certainly you don't need the transitional devices, and I suspect the point form format would curb the tendency to overwrite descriptions. And if If you agree with Bryce that boxed text should be no more than 3-5 sentences, the same would apply to bullet points.

So I think reasonable people can disagree about whether well done boxed text and well done point form are better for them personally. What I am suggesting is that one is more likely to be screwed up than the other. Neither of us has any empirical data, so we can't prove it either way.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

All I'm saying is it is of unreliable quality

Everything made by anyone has the possibility to be of "unreliable quality", bullet-points inclusive - your gripe means essentially nothing. "I don't eat food because sometimes people cook bad" is a terrible excuse to starve yourself to death. It's nonsensical.

bullet points contain the same information as would be in boxed text, but just separating the concepts from each other in physical space, and losing the (often convoluted) sentence structure.

Bullet points distinctly lack something that boxed text has: context - which is imperative in the world of communicating ideas. That separation kills the context.

"A donkey wearing an orange coat" means something.
"A donkey patch embroidered onto an orange coat" means something else.
"A donkey with a coat of orange fur" means something even more different.
"Orange coat > donkey" means nothing, because it lacks context.

What takes longer: reading the words "a donkey is wearing an orange coat"; or trying to decipher the meaning of "orange coat >donkey", and then saying just as many words ("Oh uh, I guess a donkey is wearing an orange coat? Yeah looks like that's what it means...")?

Yet we expect it to be the default for little reason beyond "I don't like reading" or "my players don't want me to talk so long"? Am I the only one who sees the irony in that, for a game based out of books, which revolves around purely verbal descriptions of imaginary situations?

 

[Malrex]

I'm in favor of your Example 2 and that's how I write my stuff (except I don't put a box around it, but maybe I will try it). Personally I dislike products that have Example 1 in it. It's JARRING to me....and sometimes comes off as dry and hard for me to run with it. I've come to the conclusion though that which method speaks to the DM depends on if they are left or right brained. I have enough going on as DM...I don't want to combine words and sentences together from bullet points...I want to read the description and while the players are figuring out what they want to do I can glance at the DM info.

Boxed text or your example 2 needs to be punchy, terse, and evocative, which can be hard to do, and should stay around 3 sentences max--I still struggle with it. But when it goes on and on...thats when Boxed Text becomes useless and gets its bad name (I still remember those boxed, page long introductions..bleh).
Bullet points have a place though and that's the DM info that they can glance at quickly...they don't need a sentence to read like in the description, they can roll with it however they want.
Finally--the bolded words are great IF its something that players might ask about as the DM can quickly glance to what it is.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

But when it goes on and on...thats when Boxed Text becomes useless and gets its bad name (I still remember those boxed, page long introductions..bleh).

I agree, terseness is required. But that's not a failing of boxed text; it's a failure of technical writing. A complicated room that needs two paragraphs of boxed text doesn't suddenly become un-complicated if converted to bullet points - it instead becomes even more convoluted.

Bullet points have a place though and that's the DM info that they can glance at quickly...

To be clear, I don't advocate for the exclusion of bullet points - you can see them quite clearly in my Example 2, used for the DM-facing information. I am advocating for the abolishment of bullet points for the player-facing information, since it adds extra work to the DM's plate (i.e. interpreting the context and synthesizing accurate verbal description). It's also hella-lazy, looking like someone just published their home notes. But we already seem to agree on that point.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Bullet points have a place though and that's the DM info that they can glance at quickly...they don't need a sentence to read like in the description, they can roll with it however they want.
Finally--the bolded words are great IF its something that players might ask about as the DM can quickly glance to what it is.

Here's my methodology:

1) Boxed text for player-facing information. This is read to the players, written for terseness and to be as orientating as possible (because it does double duty of explaining the room the to DM, who is taking in the same information at the same time). The boxed text has bolded elements within - these are points that merit further investigation by the players. Anything not bolded is not special, requiring no extra DM effort beyond "it's just a normal set of drapes" or whatever.

2) Bullet points for DM information. The bullets are literally the bolded keywords in the boxed text. The DM knows what the players know (because of the boxed text), so knows what they are likely to look into (anything that would be bolded). These bullets only come into play after the players declare their actions in the room (or allow the room to act on its own, in the case of encounters or traps), and separates the hidden stuff from the obvious stuff in a visually easy-to-reference way.

3) Break-outs for additional stuff that might be referenced but doesn't need automatic inclusion in the base descriptive text for the room. These are your sidebars and stat blocks; stuff that clutters the room key with information that isn't quite needed during the "describe and interact with the room" phase of the game. Kept nearby, compartmentalized.

 

[Beoric]

Example - You are seeing these descriptions for the first time. Which of the two rooms below is easier to run as the DM (one boxed text, one not)?

Example 1

Dome-shaped Room (dark, blue marble etched with alien constellations).
Pedestal - holds jagged steel crown upon violet pillow.

Crown - BAZARAK CROWN. White steel, blue and red gemstones (lapis and ruby); worth 10,000gp to dwarves of Venture Mountain (1,000gp otherwise)​

Hunched humanoid in bandages (crouched behind pedestal).

GONFRED (Mummy - MM p.XX); fearful/wary at first, only wants to stop the crown from being stolen, otherwise peaceful. If friendly, will point the party to the secret door in Area 8 - otherwise points the party towards trap in Area 9.​

Door - Heavy-duty reinforced steel. Locked, DC15 (key is in Area 4). Hardness 15, 100hp.

Example 2

This dark, domed room is made of blue marble etched with alien constellations. A pedestal in the middle holds a jagged steel crown resting atop a violet pillow - behind it, a hunched figure draped in blood-stained bandages peers with pinprick eyes. The door opposite is made of heavy-duty reinforced steel.

Crown: White steel, adorned with studs of lapis and ruby - the BAZARAK CROWN (worth 10,000gp to the dwarves of Venture Mountain; 1,000gp to anyone else).
Figure: GONFRED THE MUMMY (MM p.XX) - fearful/wary at first, only wants to stop the crown from being stolen, otherwise peaceful. If friendly, will point the party to the secret door in Area 8 - otherwise points the party towards trap in Area 9.
Door: Locked, DC15 (key is in Area 4). Hardness 15, 100hp.


Notice how both room keys occupy roughly the same page real estate. Notice how one can be dug into immediately, while the other requires reading, digestion, and interpretation. Why is this a bad thing, exactly?

I don't think this is a fair example, because the box text you created is pretty decent, and the point form summary is not great.

I would do something like this:

• the room is dark, with a dome of blue marble etched with alien constellations
• beneath the dome, in the center of the room, a pedestal appears
• a jagged crown sits upon the pedestal
• a hunched figure, draped in blood-stained bandages, peers at the party from behind the pedestal [Ed. I don't see how the party could know that the mummy has pinprick eyes at this distance]
• a heavy door, bound in steel, can be seen beyond the figure

The figure is Gonfred the Mummy (MM p.XX), who is charged with protecting the crown. He will be fearful or wary, depending on how the party presents itself, but will be peaceful if the crown is not threatened. If he is confident that the party poses no threat, he will point them to the secret door in Area 8; otherwise he points the party towards the trap in Area 9.

The crown is of steel, enameled white, and adorned with studs of lapis and ruby. This is the Bazarak Crown, worth 1,000 gp, or 10,000 gp to the dwarves of Venture Mountain.

The door is locked (DC15, Hardness 15, 100hp). The key is in area 4.

The bullet points are quite close to being sentences, but are more clearly separated as concepts. I prefer the bullets for the player-facing information, because it uses simpler, oral language; because breaking up the concepts helps the DM to present the concepts one at a time (and consequently allows the players to absorb the concepts one at a time); and because I have an easier time picking out the relevant concepts in this form than if I need to pick them out of sentences. [EDIT: It also helps me separate the objects in space.]

I prefer the narrative style for the DM-facing discussion, as it ties the concepts together, and helps them stick in my brain. It also can use more complex sentence structure, because it is written to be read, not spoken. To be fair, I'm assuming this is at least the second time the DM has looked at it, not the first.

This is what I do for myself. If it was for publication, I'm not sure if it is preferable to bold the elements that are not shared between bullet points and DM text (e.g. the Bazarak Crown), or whether it is better to let the DM do their own highlighting. If it is a fancy, hard bound book that I would be unable to force myself to mark up, it probably makes sense to do the highlighting for them.

EDIT 2: After I wrote this it occurred to me to look up "white steel". It looks like nobody's immune to using specific, uncommon language.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

EDIT 2: After I wrote this it occurred to me to look up "white steel". It looks like nobody's immune to using specific, uncommon language.

I just picked a random color and applied it to a metal. Any pre-existing substance is news to me.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I prefer the bullets for the player-facing information, because it uses simpler, oral language; because breaking up the concepts helps the DM to present the concepts one at a time. I prefer the narrative style for the DM-facing discussion, as it ties the concepts together, and helps them stick in my brain.

What you are saying are the exact same benefits of using read-aloud/boxed text --

What's more "simple oral language" than a vocalized read-aloud?
What's more sequential ("one at a time") than a sentence followed from start to end?
What's more narrative than a narration?

 

[Malrex]

Here's my methodology:

1) Boxed text for player-facing information. This is read to the players, written for terseness and to be as orientating as possible (because it does double duty of explaining the room the to DM, who is taking in the same information at the same time). The boxed text has bolded elements within - these are points that merit further investigation by the players. Anything not bolded is not special, requiring no extra DM effort beyond "it's just a normal set of drapes" or whatever.

2) Bullet points for DM information. The bullets are literally the bolded keywords in the boxed text. The DM knows what the players know (because of the boxed text), so knows what they are likely to look into (anything that would be bolded). These bullets only come into play after the players declare their actions in the room (or allow the room to act on its own, in the case of encounters or traps), and separates the hidden stuff from the obvious stuff in a visually easy-to-reference way.

3) Break-outs for additional stuff that might be referenced but doesn't need automatic inclusion in the base descriptive text for the room. These are your sidebars and stat blocks; stuff that clutters the room key with information that isn't quite needed during the "describe and interact with the room" phase of the game. Kept nearby, compartmentalized.

Yep, pretty much agree that this is my preferred method as well. Other way isn't wrong, but I just dont care for it.

Beoric using sentences in the bullets is ok, and could maybe even be shortened up in some cases: "the room is dark" changed to "Dark room..." the point is, Beoric's methods could be argued that its easier to scan. It isn't as jarring to me than the 3 word bullet points, which maybe some think is punchy, but I think it looses its evocativeness in an attempt to be short.

Hmmm...now I'm thinking....:
DP's method most of the time.
Beoric's method on the complicated rooms. Maybe the first 2-3 sentences is like DP's method, but as the room's complexity begins to unravel a bit, its broken down into bullets w/ sentences to try to summarize the complexity. This would be an attempt not to lose important text (despite being bolded) in a paragraph wall.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

This would be an attempt not to lose important text (despite being bolded) in a paragraph wall.

Read-aloud should be brief - if done right, it wouldn't be a paragraph wall. You can put down as much as you want in point form after the fact, but the read-aloud is meant for immediate communication to the players, and what the players need to know immediately should be only the tip of the iceberg in any given room (they need to interact in order to know more; the exploration dynamic of the game).

I only advocate for a "two birds, one stone" approach, where the read-aloud can do double-duty as an orientation piece for the DM, so as to avoid any dead air while he comes to understand the room he's running.

 

[Beoric]

I just picked a random color and applied it to a metal. Any pre-existing substance is news to me.

TIL

White vs Blue Steel Knives: Sharpening, Durability, and Performance Compared | KIREAJI

Explore the distinct differences between White and Blue Steel knives. Understand how composition impacts sharpness, ease of sharpening, and durability to choose the perfect knife for your culinary needs.

kireaji.ca

 

[DangerousPuhson]