Eero classifies module writing verbosity

[Two orcs]

New on Desk #120 — Laconic Order – Correspondence is about Diligence (arkenstonepublishing.net)

Interesting read and some nifty examples of how the same room would look written in the 3 different styles he classifies module writing into.

Laconic is what Bryce would probably call "minimalistic" or "minimally keyed".

Geneva is typical of Gygax, quite detailed.

Literary is what Bryce has set out to destroy, the order of "if then".

 

[Beoric]

Interesting that the writer first encountered the "Literary" style in OSR modules and quote's Raggi as an example.

 

[squeen]

It's a pretty neat little comparison. I can't say where my preference always falls. I like additional detail if it's game-able, but like the presentation of it to be as terse as possible.

For example, I like the "gems of the undersea" hidden away down there. I would just add something to make it meaningful (treasure of some nature) if the players discovered it.

 

[Reason]

Nice article.

I like a blend of Laconic & Geneva.

The Dyson example quoted has no hooks for the players to grab onto & follow up.

The Geneva example is fine by me- but if it was edited down to bullet points & terse sentences would be better.

I'd BUY the Geneva example if the content suited my campaign. I'd pass over the Dyson one as too bland- if I'm paying I want some juice, not a list.

 

[Yora]

Interesting that the writer first encountered the "Literary" style in OSR modules and quote's Raggi as an example.

The issue is that it's a comparison of an apple and an orange orchard. The first example is "one hobgoblin in a room with a table and a box". The third example tries to communicate a location of strange supernatural weirdness in a strange spooky place.

 

[tetramorph]

I think I prefer Laconic. I think I am in the minority on that one here. Lynch hates that Laconic style almost as much as he hates the Literary. And most folks are here because they agree, more or less, with Lynch. (I do too, about most things! Just not that.)

 

[Hemlock]

I think I prefer Laconic. I think I am in the minority on that one here. Lynch hates that Laconic style almost as much as he hates the Literary. And most folks are here because they agree, more or less, with Lynch. (I do too, about most things! Just not that.)

For me I'd say I like laconic room keys but find literary ideas interesting. The hobgoblin history and weird painting could interest me if presented in an Appendix A to the adventure, for example, or in a standalone book about interesting adventure gaming conceits. But on a map key I need something easy to skim, and the Laconic examples appeal to me most.

(Though really, I don't really like static adventuring locations in the first place. I prefer more dynamism--monsters that move around and interact with each other at the same time as PCs are interacting. This is easy to DIY but hard to write up as a module.)