I think box text is taboo thing in the OSR circles, and rightly so as it usually makes presumptions that don't fit the adventuring party.
One of the bx texts start with "You fling the door open and gasp in horror..."
OSR dudes rarely fling the door open cause they know there is shit on the other side that could eat them. And do I have to gasp in horror? Would it be okay if I hum in horror or pucker my lips in terror? The presumptive nature of box text is where it fails for me.
But wait you think (see, doing a little box texting of my own here) doesn't Knowledge Illuminates have blocked text. Guilty. But I use it the other way. The box text is for the GM. Usually I write a few sentences of what's in the room, but that is just the info to give the GM the outline to run with. The box text is there for the 'second layer' of the room. What the GM knows, but not the players. A physical marker to make the information easier. People may not like that way either, but that's the way I like to write some of my adventures (some, there is not a box in sight).
My Friday, this week has been so damn long, question is, Do you like the use of box text? I think if its used right there of course is nothing wrong with it, but when you direct the players actions within the text is a huge mistake.
I think that the game master should know the dungeon and use either kind of box text as what he knows. Then using his story telling skills to combine what is written with what his adventure party is doing. So answer the question Yes on text box if the game master prepares. No if he does not prepare so that he has to prepare.
ReplyDeleteHey! Good to hear from you. Yeah, it's important that the GM gets familiar with the adventure so they can spin their own flair onto the adventure.
DeleteI don't object to minimal, terse box text. As you said it breaks up the information and sometimes makes it easier to read. What I don't like is when the box text rambles on and on and turns out to be almost a short story in itself.
ReplyDeleteThis. I like box text that gives a good description of the room/hall/glade/etc. It helps me keep track of what the players see versus what is actually there. Sometimes, when I am left to describe the scene based on what the module says, I will let slip something that the players shouldn't quite be aware of yet. A good box text will help me keep things seperate, without railroading anyone into specific actions or reactions.
DeleteFor me, a good text box gives you the 1st layer, the visible contents and critters dwelling inside. To allow the GM to use the info to form it into his own version.
DeleteDitto to Tim's thought about breaking up what can otherwise be very long, unmanageable copy. As for the player/character experience... when writing boxed text, I take my cues from some of my screenwriting experience... never say what is being felt or remembered, or any choices the PCs will make (e.g., flinging the door open is their choice, not mine). The only thing that should be included in boxed text is what can be SEEN by the players on first casual observance, or PHYSICALLY SENSED (e.g., temperature, sounds, smells, etc.), but never emotionally sensed. If the thing being seen takes more than few seconds to take in and process, then it's outside the boxed area, below (e.g., outside box - "If the PCs spend more than a few moments in the room, they will start to notice...") If it requires more observance or exploration, I might put multiple text boxes for the room, and only read the appropriate ones at the appropriate times E.g., I have a room in Catacombs of Kadmos with several statues that require some attention; the text for each statue is boxed individually. This also helps me find the text I need quickly in a room with 9 or 10 detailed areas like that.
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen many examples of boxed text used well in a product. I wouldn't mind some quick serving suggestions of what the character might say or how they would say it, but not the locked in place dialogue that is usually taking up the space of more useful information.
ReplyDeleteBox text has never been for me. I've always thought a GM reading box text was akin to a teacher reading a lecture. Reading box text always feels to me like talking "at" the players rather than talking "with" them. I prefer the latter. Know your dungeon, have notes and bullet points and such to jog your memory as needed, then just talk about it naturally.
ReplyDeleteI would answer but blogger doesn't allow me use a text block.
ReplyDeleteFor beginning DMs, I think boxed texts are fine--so long as the text doesn't go more than a paragraph and only describes the fives senses.
ReplyDeleteWhere the ire for boxed text, IMO, comes from the TSR modules in the late eighties and early ninties, where at times the boxed text would go a whole page--like The Patriots of Ulek, for example.
Also, a lot of the boxed text described the actions of NPCs, making it seem like the PCs were just spectators.
DeleteMy problem with box text goes back to my time as a very young player. When the DM started reading the boxed text, I had a very hard time following. I think it has something to do with being read to instead of the DM naturally explaining things. Often the whole party would miss obvious things in the room that had been mentioned in the box text.
ReplyDeletePlayer: "What? There was a chest there? I didn't know that!"
DM: "I read it to you in the boxed text"
Player: "Oh"
http://castletriskelion.blogspot.com/
I've had that same conversation. And I've been on both ends.
DeleteI like boxed text for the GM, but not as something to be read verbatim. It should serve as something "extra" for the GM, to "implement" however he chooses.
ReplyDeleteI like descriptive boxed text. I don't like boxed text - or ANY text - that assumes reactions or actions by the group. But purely descriptive? I don't get the hate. It's there to help me, and I find it helpful.
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with boxed text giving additional background info or something like that.
ReplyDelete