|
4 months ago ::
Feb 02, 2013 - 5:41AM
#1
|
|
|
As a veteran player returning to D&D, the nostagic element is important to me. I think Next is working well to replicate this within a modern RPG framework. However, and I'm not sure if it's just because they're playtest material, but I'm rather disappointed with the location descriptions of the playtest adventures.
If the game is to be truly "Theatre of the Mind", then the descriptions of locations need to fire our imaginations. Look at these examples I copied from B3, The Silver Princess, written in 1981:
Now look at this from the Caves of Chaos playtest:
Light: Dim (fire in fireplace)
Noise: Many loud, harsh voices to the west
Smell: Smoke
"A great fireplace in the south wall glows with a small charcoal fire. Benches and tables fill the chamber. One chair, which is larger than the rest and is set at the head of a big table, is carved with an inscription."
Now tell me which fires the imagination more.
The first example teases all your senses: sight; touch; hearing; smell - okay maybe not taste, but you can practically taste the atmosphere as the room is described.
The second example is functional and the read aloud description is entirely visual, as many 3rd and 4th ed games were. It could have been vastly improved by moving the functional Light, Noise and Smell elements into the description, bringing the situation to life the same way all good books do.
I know it will mean a little more work, but if WotC are claiming to truly make this a "Theatre of the Mind" game then please please please play to the audience and raise our interest. Of course I am making the asumption that WotC will want to produce a line of adventures, but for busy 40-somethings like me they are a boon; and if they are well written, evocative and interesting then I'll be wanting to purchase more in the line.
A little stretch of the imagination goes a long way.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 02, 2013 - 11:45AM
#2
|
|
|
Agree completely. ToTM needs to have very evocative descriptions, and nothing is lost by making good, full descriptions.
Of course, it might just be because it's a playtest that the writing is being kept somewhat to a minimum - I don't have any 3rd/4th modules to compare to. Still a valid point to mention before the modules actually start being produced, though.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 02, 2013 - 1:17PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2013
|
This is an excellent point that I hope catches someone's attention at WotC if they aren't already planning to write this way.
I'm sure some would argue that the DM should take the given material and use their own storytelling skills to make it come to life more, but having some additional sense info in the text would only benefit DMs, especially those less experienced and/or not as good at creating atmosphere.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 05, 2013 - 10:45AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2013
|
I was just re-reading the DM Guidelines from the latest playtest and came across a section that does address this. It looks like, at least so far in the playtest, they are relying on what I described above, which is having the DM make the story come to life on their own without having everything environment-wise laid out explicitly in the text. On page 4 under "Engaging the Players" it reads:
"When you ask a player to make a check, an attack, or a saving throw, you first should focus on engaging the players' imaginations. Describe the scene to them, and pull in details such as sights, sounds, and even smells to make the action vivid."
I actually like this better as it gives the DM a little more freedom and encourages creativity. The pre-texted descriptions would be helpful for new or less creative DMs, but I'm a firm believer that the more you practice being creative, the better you will become at it, so this could help budding DMs learn to become more creative rather than limiting themselves by always relying on spoon fed descriptions.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 05, 2013 - 5:13PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2012
|
It's been awhile since I dug into all of this, but isn't the Caves of Chaos playtest more-or-less converted from its original 1979 incarnation? I was under the impression that it was mostly unchanged except for the parts needed to support D&D Next, explain what's being playtested, and stat adjustments and the like. That said, I certainly haven't played the original.
|
|
|
