oriented toward actual play, the text. DOes that go here? It's really about what words to use, which is a specific application of scannability
expanded minimalism sucks. thats a common problem
generally speaking, it's better to trend to minimal. But that's terseness, which contributes to scannabailty?
This is core concept number one: the adventure needs to assist the DM in running[1] it. Everything else in this book will tie back to this point.
The goal is to write and design a play aid for the DM. You’d be surprised how much disagreement there is on this point. The adventure could be used as a doorstop. It could be used as insulation. It could be used as kindling. It could be used for inspiration. The purpose of the adventure though is not any of those things. The purpose of the adventure is to help the DM run the game at the table. If someone reads the adventure and they get the idea for the next Dahlgren then that’s great. If they read it and don’t use any of it but it haunts their dreams and they write the anti-version of it then that’s great also. In both examples, though, the adventure has failed in its primary purpose. The DM needs to be able to pick the adventure up, hopefully having enough time to read/scan it quickly once, and then use it as is at the table to run a successful game. The need to point to point this out seems absurd. If you want to write a fluff book, sourcebook, or novel then have at thee. I wish you well. But that’s not an adventure. The purpose of the adventure is to help that poor s.o.b. run their game at the table.
Everything else in this book is going to tie back to this conceit in one way or another. Good encounter descriptions. Good wandering monsters. Social elements in the dungeon. How creatures react to battle. Reference tables. There are lots of pieces that contribute. Some are big ideas. Some are minutia. The measure for success for your adventure will be how well it can survive a DM picking it up and running it successfully with little to no prep. A tall order? Very achievable if you put in some work and think about what you are designing and writing.
A key concept in usability is Scanability. The DM needs to glance at the adventure page and immediately find the information they are looking for. About a second to locate the information they need and absorb it. This makes sense. Imagine the flow of a game. The players direct their characters in to the next room. The DM glances down at the page, finds room two, absorbs the immediate need, and relates it to the players. While the players are ruminating the DM is absorbing additional information about the room. If the players search the chest in the room then the chest information must be quickly locatable. This allows for seamless play the table, without long pauses and the need to read paragraphs in order to launch in to the rooms actual play. The DM needs to locate the initial information quickly and they need to be able to locate follow up information quickly.
[1] Reword this
expanded minimalism sucks. thats a common problem
generally speaking, it's better to trend to minimal. But that's terseness, which contributes to scannabailty?
This is core concept number one: the adventure needs to assist the DM in running[1] it. Everything else in this book will tie back to this point.
The goal is to write and design a play aid for the DM. You’d be surprised how much disagreement there is on this point. The adventure could be used as a doorstop. It could be used as insulation. It could be used as kindling. It could be used for inspiration. The purpose of the adventure though is not any of those things. The purpose of the adventure is to help the DM run the game at the table. If someone reads the adventure and they get the idea for the next Dahlgren then that’s great. If they read it and don’t use any of it but it haunts their dreams and they write the anti-version of it then that’s great also. In both examples, though, the adventure has failed in its primary purpose. The DM needs to be able to pick the adventure up, hopefully having enough time to read/scan it quickly once, and then use it as is at the table to run a successful game. The need to point to point this out seems absurd. If you want to write a fluff book, sourcebook, or novel then have at thee. I wish you well. But that’s not an adventure. The purpose of the adventure is to help that poor s.o.b. run their game at the table.
Everything else in this book is going to tie back to this conceit in one way or another. Good encounter descriptions. Good wandering monsters. Social elements in the dungeon. How creatures react to battle. Reference tables. There are lots of pieces that contribute. Some are big ideas. Some are minutia. The measure for success for your adventure will be how well it can survive a DM picking it up and running it successfully with little to no prep. A tall order? Very achievable if you put in some work and think about what you are designing and writing.
A key concept in usability is Scanability. The DM needs to glance at the adventure page and immediately find the information they are looking for. About a second to locate the information they need and absorb it. This makes sense. Imagine the flow of a game. The players direct their characters in to the next room. The DM glances down at the page, finds room two, absorbs the immediate need, and relates it to the players. While the players are ruminating the DM is absorbing additional information about the room. If the players search the chest in the room then the chest information must be quickly locatable. This allows for seamless play the table, without long pauses and the need to read paragraphs in order to launch in to the rooms actual play. The DM needs to locate the initial information quickly and they need to be able to locate follow up information quickly.
[1] Reword this
Last edited:
