With my group, it doesn't seem to matter. Every time I start a module, we are usually off the page before the end of the first encounter.

To hell with you all! 

mabon5127 wrote:

Chainsaw wrote:

To hell with you all! 

Could you bullet point that? I don't want to miss it later.😂

 
* you
* hell

Chainsaw wrote:

mabon5127 wrote:

Chainsaw wrote:

To hell with you all!

Could you bullet point that? I don't want to miss it later.😂

 
* you
* hell

That. Is. Awesome.

Blackadder23 wrote:

Chainsaw wrote:

I'll take the other side.

While I totally endorse formatting that facilitates functionality, as a rule, I would rather provide the formatting myself. For example, I'd rather use a highlighter myself to identify what *I* think is important or need help remembering from each key passage. The number of times I have run a module without reading it first and then making my own mark ups in the text/maps myself is exactly zero - and I can't imagine that number ever approaching one. Reading, digesting and interacting with the text via highlighter and pencil helps me learn the material. I know there's a school of thought where the presentation should be such that you can sit down and run a module "on the fly" with no prep, but that approach seems unrealistic to me and, in my opinion, ultimately ends up dumbing down the material. YMMV etc etc etc

To be clear, in Xambaala's case, the bullets don't prevent me from doing that or anything, so if they help someone else, great.

I'm going to agree with Chainsaw here.

I haven't read the adventures yet (still trying to hold out for the hard copies) but I'm sure the usage in Xambaala is perfectly cool. Nevertheless, speaking as an adventure writer, it isn't something I would want imposed on me as some kind of "standard". Ideally, I would like to see every writer come up with something new and different in terms of adventure design.

The concept was innovated by editor Michael Haskell. At first I questioned the utility of it, but once I saw it, I realized its utility: a nice way to present what is essentially an introductory module (1st level) to novice referees. Furthermore, there are busy referees with less time to study the ins and outs of an adventure module, so I can see that it can be a great way to quickly process chunks of information. I do not intend to make it a company "standard"; rather, in cases where I think it could be helpful, we might do it again, but it's not something that we would ask the writer to develop while adventure writing. Putting on my publisher / layout guy hat, my largest concern with it was how much page count it would eat. So, it was something of a cool, new experiment that may not be to everyone's tastes, but I liked it enough to give it a shot. It may or may not happen again. Cheers! 
 

Chainsaw wrote:

mabon5127 wrote:

Chainsaw wrote:

To hell with you all!

Could you bullet point that? I don't want to miss it later.😂

 
* you
* hell

I think you missed the verb, Donovan.  Maybe you need two or three colors of highlighters? ;) :D :D :D

Allan.
 

Ynas Midgard wrote:

Given how many times these modules had been tested in both home games and at conventions, I'm curious how much these playtests have shaped the modules? Has difficulty been altered in either direction? Treasures increased/decreased? Extra information that repeatedly came up in actual gaming added in?

Great questions.

Ynas Midgard wrote:

Given how many times these modules had been tested in both home games and at conventions, I'm curious how much these playtests have shaped the modules? Has difficulty been altered in either direction? Treasures increased/decreased? Extra information that repeatedly came up in actual gaming added in?

I’ve run my own The Lost Treasure of Atlantis more than a dozen times at conventions over the past two years and I changed quite a bit from my first draft (completed mid-2016) to my final draft (submitted mid-2018). Along the way, I changed the map, room contents, monsters, NPCs, physical features, traps and treasure. Pretty much everything was fair game.

Now, I didn’t change something just because a particular group had a hard or easy time with it, but rather because I thought it played out confusingly or awkwardly or that it was just plain boring. My guiding questions were always, “Can I make this easier/faster for the referee” and “Can I make this more fun/interesting for the players.” There are a few totally random examples below, but when the module comes out next spring or summer, I’ll be happy to chat about it all in way more detail to the extent that someone cares.

-A deep shaft that I originally envisioned PCs would rappel down received an access ladder embedded along the side.
-Three nondescript cave entrances each received some dungeon dressing to hint at what lies ahead.
-A room’s non-interactive feature was upgraded to be interactive.
-Added/highlighted opportunities to team with creatures.
-A complex trap was dramatically simplified.
-A cumbersome, rules-heavy atmospheric situation on a level was eliminated.
-An elaborate system of mutations was removed.
-Potions were given more interesting descriptions than "X color liquid".
-Reorganized paragraphs to prioritize information better.

Physical modules arrived! They look and feel great. Pumped about running them. Will post some pics tonight.

Very nice!