Dungeons and Dragons taught me how to write alt text(ericwbailey.website)
ericwbailey.website
Dungeons and Dragons taught me how to write alt text
https://ericwbailey.website/published/dungeons-and-dragons-taught-me-how-to-write-alt-text/
87 comments
> Most people intuitively describe images from foreground to background or left to right
I've heard there are cultural biases to this ordering. Some cultures tend to describe the background or scene first. The example I read about identified Japan as an "outside in".
I've been encouraging my kid to use "outside in" or "context first" in their descriptions with me, mainly because they suck at giving context. I doubt I'd have known about it if I hadn't read that about Japan.
Would love to hear from a Japanese person on this.
I've heard there are cultural biases to this ordering. Some cultures tend to describe the background or scene first. The example I read about identified Japan as an "outside in".
I've been encouraging my kid to use "outside in" or "context first" in their descriptions with me, mainly because they suck at giving context. I doubt I'd have known about it if I hadn't read that about Japan.
Would love to hear from a Japanese person on this.
I can't speak from a Japanese perspective, but there's definitely a specific-to-general or general-to-specific nature to languages.
"If you can get it in the next 60 seconds there's a million dollars in the jar in the back right of the second shelf of refrigerator." My wife is Chinese, she works from a general-to-specific worldview and I would be surprised if she could follow those directions in the time limit.
Flip it and say "If you can get to it in the next 60 seconds there's a million dollars in the refrigerator, on the second shelf, in the back right, in a jar." and she would have no problem with it.
We focus on the specific, build up the image of it's environment and then paste it into the world. She refines the world so all the references are left hanging until the whole sentence is complete and that's probably enough to confuse her. We just find her approach to feel odd but we can still follow it much better than she can follow ours.
"If you can get it in the next 60 seconds there's a million dollars in the jar in the back right of the second shelf of refrigerator." My wife is Chinese, she works from a general-to-specific worldview and I would be surprised if she could follow those directions in the time limit.
Flip it and say "If you can get to it in the next 60 seconds there's a million dollars in the refrigerator, on the second shelf, in the back right, in a jar." and she would have no problem with it.
We focus on the specific, build up the image of it's environment and then paste it into the world. She refines the world so all the references are left hanging until the whole sentence is complete and that's probably enough to confuse her. We just find her approach to feel odd but we can still follow it much better than she can follow ours.
There's a reason pretty the majority of electronic addressing uses that second format***. It's just easier to follow, and in fact you can start executing before the sentence is finished - as well as discard any specifics you don't care about without having to scan the entirety first.
Following the second instructions works like this: Go to refrigerator, go to second shelf, go to back right, go to jar.
Meanwhile following the first set of instructions requires this: remember jar, remember back right, remember second shelf, go to refrigerator, recall second shelf, recall back right, recall jar.
It is objectively a worse way to give instructions, because you are giving them in reverse order.
If you had to code some software following instructions and your interface was push(instruction)/end(), your first sentence would require more code and more working memory just to store instructions until you've given the last one, while for your second example they could just be executed right away.
*** Funnily enough it still tends to get flipped the closer we get to natural language. URL paths, domains, IP-addresses, etc, are all written the proper way, except if you add usernames into the mix. Suddenly we turn natural language "at" into "@" and prepend them.
Following the second instructions works like this: Go to refrigerator, go to second shelf, go to back right, go to jar.
Meanwhile following the first set of instructions requires this: remember jar, remember back right, remember second shelf, go to refrigerator, recall second shelf, recall back right, recall jar.
It is objectively a worse way to give instructions, because you are giving them in reverse order.
If you had to code some software following instructions and your interface was push(instruction)/end(), your first sentence would require more code and more working memory just to store instructions until you've given the last one, while for your second example they could just be executed right away.
*** Funnily enough it still tends to get flipped the closer we get to natural language. URL paths, domains, IP-addresses, etc, are all written the proper way, except if you add usernames into the mix. Suddenly we turn natural language "at" into "@" and prepend them.
For most purposes the second format is superior for the very reasons you state. In a certain world it's always going to be superior.
However, it means that concepts which are not attached to a worldview become harder to work with. Think of making subassemblies of jigsaw puzzle pieces. You can see that pieces are related and fit together without knowing what you're actually looking at.
However, it means that concepts which are not attached to a worldview become harder to work with. Think of making subassemblies of jigsaw puzzle pieces. You can see that pieces are related and fit together without knowing what you're actually looking at.
I think of this in cinematic terms. The first sentence is going to start with a shot of the painting, then it will either cut, zoom or dolly out to reveal the crowd. Whereas the second shot starts with the wide angle of the gallery and then does the opposite. Each has a slightly different effect on the scene and the audience.
> As correctly noted by the author, describing by importance first has the added benefit of allowing screen reader users to skip irrelevant/uninteresting images
Good rule of thumb, but also very context dependent. Consider the following example of a pattern used extensively by Douglas Adams, and a little by Terry Pratchett, in service of humour:
The point being, punchlines have to go last.
Good rule of thumb, but also very context dependent. Consider the following example of a pattern used extensively by Douglas Adams, and a little by Terry Pratchett, in service of humour:
I made my escape by swiftly sliding down the laundry chute, my fall
being gently broken by the Wednesday rota for large duvets. A perfect
plan to avoid spraining the other ankle.
Too bad today was Thursday.
You breathlessly take in the wonder of the large underground
cavern; the twinkling of glow-worms high above resembling
the night sky, the luminous ore-lines tracing sinuous veins
away into the horizon, the mountains in the distance, at once
both masking and highlighting just how large the cavern is.
By comparison, the rapidly approaching 300-foot high fire-
breathing Dragon intent on devouring your party fatally appears
unimpressively small.
The point being, punchlines have to go last.
Yes I actually liked the dragon being last. It created the sense of surprise over a calm unimpressive room. First the area was described as much as it would be if it was in real life and you were entering the room and scanning it with your eyes until your eyes finally go to this dangerous thing you didn’t see at first.
I think it’s better for narrative but for communication for sure the most important things come first, and sometimes last only if you want them to continue to have it in their mind.
I think it’s better for narrative but for communication for sure the most important things come first, and sometimes last only if you want them to continue to have it in their mind.
The first sentence leads me to imagine a torn up painting and a group of people clustered around it.
The second sentences leads me to imagine a large gallery space with high ceilings with a smattering of people in front of one of the paintings.
Both ways have their pros and cons. Describing the space first lets the reader paint a setting for the eventual object of interest.
The second sentences leads me to imagine a large gallery space with high ceilings with a smattering of people in front of one of the paintings.
Both ways have their pros and cons. Describing the space first lets the reader paint a setting for the eventual object of interest.
That's true, but consider the context; this isn't a novel, it's functional text for someone who is probably trying to accomplish a task. A user in a hurry might skip part way through the second description and be misled to thinking the photo was just a normal picture of a gallery.
I think GP is a great comment with a poor example, because I agree that the resulting images in my mind are quite different, but they don't inherently have to be due to the order things are described in.
I grew up next to, and a couple years younger than, someone who is now a famous novelist and singer-songwriter. In our childhood, he was renowned in the neighborhood as a dungeon master. He rode the theater of the mind as far is it would take him.
The advice in the magazine reminds me of the inverted pyramid structure of classic reporting. Most important first, assume that the reader could stop reading after any sentence, so make the most of each phrase.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism...
The advice in the magazine reminds me of the inverted pyramid structure of classic reporting. Most important first, assume that the reader could stop reading after any sentence, so make the most of each phrase.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism...
I think they are the same thing, the magazine just put it in fun language so the reader would be more interested.
This structure is why I don't like those ridiculous interviews where it starts with "the actor sits in his home with [long description of furniture], wearing [long description of clothes], he sips coffee from a [long description of mug]". I just want the interview, I understand that the actor is living somewhere and wearing something, it does not matter.
This structure is why I don't like those ridiculous interviews where it starts with "the actor sits in his home with [long description of furniture], wearing [long description of clothes], he sips coffee from a [long description of mug]". I just want the interview, I understand that the actor is living somewhere and wearing something, it does not matter.
> This structure is why I don't like those ridiculous interviews where it starts with "the actor sits in his home with [long description of furniture], wearing [long description of clothes], he sips coffee from a [long description of mug]". I just want the interview, I understand that the actor is living somewhere and wearing something, it does not matter.
While I agree with you that I find this style of writing commonly found in the entertainment section of a weekend piece to be very grating, I would argue that this still follows the bottom line up front. For the audience that these pieces are geared towards, the important part is whether the actor passes the vibe check or not. The latter part of the interview itself is not too important because it is mainly promoting whatever the actor wants to promote in the piece.
For instance, "the actor sits in his home with [long description of furniture]" describes how they keep their home's interior stylistically. What the actor wears shows how good their fashion sense is. Sipping coffee from a fancy mug shows how wealthy they are and/or shows the morning vibe they would exude on a good day.
While I agree with you that I find this style of writing commonly found in the entertainment section of a weekend piece to be very grating, I would argue that this still follows the bottom line up front. For the audience that these pieces are geared towards, the important part is whether the actor passes the vibe check or not. The latter part of the interview itself is not too important because it is mainly promoting whatever the actor wants to promote in the piece.
For instance, "the actor sits in his home with [long description of furniture]" describes how they keep their home's interior stylistically. What the actor wears shows how good their fashion sense is. Sipping coffee from a fancy mug shows how wealthy they are and/or shows the morning vibe they would exude on a good day.
That's true. The interesting thing is how D&D creates branching trees of inverted periods, scene by scene and character by character.
In great fiction, IMO, there's usually something big that you are not certain of yet that makes it propulsive. Sometimes it's "which hard choice will the character make in a given scene?" D&D offloads that decision to the players.
With journalism and I guess alt text, you have one big inverted pyramid, and then a recipe for sentence structure that attempts to pack all the relevant facts in for each node. It's actually trying to front-load how it eliminates the unknowns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ws
In great fiction, IMO, there's usually something big that you are not certain of yet that makes it propulsive. Sometimes it's "which hard choice will the character make in a given scene?" D&D offloads that decision to the players.
With journalism and I guess alt text, you have one big inverted pyramid, and then a recipe for sentence structure that attempts to pack all the relevant facts in for each node. It's actually trying to front-load how it eliminates the unknowns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ws
Why are you reading a lifestyle interview with <entertainment celebrity> if you don't care about their life and how they live? What content in this interview do you care about?
I care about their latest movie or album, which is what the interview itself is usually about.
[deleted]
Like an abstract
This is actually important for all professional communication (maybe with an exception of marketing), if you want the best chance of getting what you want from the person you're communicating with, get to the point within the very first sentence, even if it's just a high-level summary, you then have the person's complete attention and can elaborate further.
If you don't get to the point quickly, people might think it doesn't really apply/matter to them and ignore it.
This became very obvious to me when my day job for a few years was responding to customer service requests over email for World of Warcraft. I would often find myself skimming all the useless (quite literally) pretext as quickly as possible scanning for what their actual problem was.
Stereotypical example of a poor email from a customer:
> Last night I finished the raid with my guild where we downed the Lich King. Then this morning I went to school where my friends and I also talked about WoW, then when I got home, everything seemed normal, I turned on my computer, logged on and entered my password, but it didn't work, then I went to the website and used the password reset, then I tried to log on and it said my account was locked, then I checked my email, and it said my account is locked and I need to contact Blizzard...
At which point I stop reading and I'm thinking "finally, I see why he's emailing us".
To be fair, these emails are often from adolescents who understandingly do not yet have the experience to do effective communication (which is actually an additional interesting aspect of customer service for a computer game compared to services which are only taken up by adults, but I digress).
I now work as a software developer for a startup and often have to interact directly with clients, and when I communicate with them, I always make sure to have my desired "call to action" (even if only summarised) within the first sentence.
If you don't get to the point quickly, people might think it doesn't really apply/matter to them and ignore it.
This became very obvious to me when my day job for a few years was responding to customer service requests over email for World of Warcraft. I would often find myself skimming all the useless (quite literally) pretext as quickly as possible scanning for what their actual problem was.
Stereotypical example of a poor email from a customer:
> Last night I finished the raid with my guild where we downed the Lich King. Then this morning I went to school where my friends and I also talked about WoW, then when I got home, everything seemed normal, I turned on my computer, logged on and entered my password, but it didn't work, then I went to the website and used the password reset, then I tried to log on and it said my account was locked, then I checked my email, and it said my account is locked and I need to contact Blizzard...
At which point I stop reading and I'm thinking "finally, I see why he's emailing us".
To be fair, these emails are often from adolescents who understandingly do not yet have the experience to do effective communication (which is actually an additional interesting aspect of customer service for a computer game compared to services which are only taken up by adults, but I digress).
I now work as a software developer for a startup and often have to interact directly with clients, and when I communicate with them, I always make sure to have my desired "call to action" (even if only summarised) within the first sentence.
Absolutely. I once did a "how to communicate effectively for executives" course and the guy who ran it said his advice for anyone from a scientific/technical background was to write the long thoughtful email explaining everything. Cut and paste the last paragraph with your conclusion to the top. Make any minor changes in wording you need. Add (preferably within the first 2 sentences) any action you want the person to take or something saying you don't expect them to do anything you're just telling them some information you think they will find useful and (hopefully) why.
His point was that technical people tend to want to produce an argument with all the information etc and then get to the conclusion. Business people typically will read the first paragraph and sigh because they don't know what the email is expecting them to do[1]. Then they go on to doing something else and tell themselves they'll come back to it when they have time.
[1] Especially not knowing whether the email is just for general information or there is a specific action the recipient needs to take.
His point was that technical people tend to want to produce an argument with all the information etc and then get to the conclusion. Business people typically will read the first paragraph and sigh because they don't know what the email is expecting them to do[1]. Then they go on to doing something else and tell themselves they'll come back to it when they have time.
[1] Especially not knowing whether the email is just for general information or there is a specific action the recipient needs to take.
> technical people tend to want to produce an argument with all the information etc
Yes, I was thinking after my comment I should bring this up too, you’ve said it possibly better than I would have.
Yes, I was thinking after my comment I should bring this up too, you’ve said it possibly better than I would have.
Just a quibble,
In a business situation, with a motivated person, state the action you want quickly and then give whatever needed details.
In a business situation, with an unmotivated person, state the problem quickly and then the action needed for solution (or the reason this is the needed action and then the action, etc).
In a story telling situation, you can draw out the scene setting 'till when you state the problem until the final result is suitably dramatic ("For just a second, the mist parts and the rust-red scaly snout of a red dragon can be")
That why I can't get the author's idea D&D helps with business questions. As a DM, I describe the environment neutrally and don't give my players action bullet points 'cause it's their job to come up with those (and if I do their job for them, they lose out).
In a business situation, with a motivated person, state the action you want quickly and then give whatever needed details.
In a business situation, with an unmotivated person, state the problem quickly and then the action needed for solution (or the reason this is the needed action and then the action, etc).
In a story telling situation, you can draw out the scene setting 'till when you state the problem until the final result is suitably dramatic ("For just a second, the mist parts and the rust-red scaly snout of a red dragon can be")
That why I can't get the author's idea D&D helps with business questions. As a DM, I describe the environment neutrally and don't give my players action bullet points 'cause it's their job to come up with those (and if I do their job for them, they lose out).
I think his point is a priority-first ordering, rather than either a general-to-specific or a specific-to-general ordering. Most people do one of the latter two.
> At which point I stop reading and I'm thinking "finally, I see why he's emailing us".
I never like to discourage 'too much' information because frankly 'end users' don't know what they need to tell us in support (that is kind of what our job is right?). I'd much prefer the above than just 'it won't let me log in' - where there maybe context that I'd want.
I spend more time asking follow up questions (without being able to provide even a modicum of solution) in many cases, I try to couch my 'questions answering questions' reply with why I am asking (more typing and explaining) when users don't give me chapter and verse, even if it is mostly 'puff'.
> I now work as a software developer for a startup and often have to interact directly with clients, and when I communicate with them, I always make sure have my desired "call to action" (even if only summarised) within the first sentence.
But that is after they have emailed you right? You cannot summarize anything until you actually have them tell you what is wrong, no matter how long takes them. So yes summarize in the first sentence is always useful and if you don't kow the solution (yet) it never hurts to admit that and say something like, 'but we can try X or see what Y is doing as that will help me understand the issue in more detail' etc.
Customer Support is hard work sometimes, now try doing it with someone who doesn't speak your language very well ;)
I never like to discourage 'too much' information because frankly 'end users' don't know what they need to tell us in support (that is kind of what our job is right?). I'd much prefer the above than just 'it won't let me log in' - where there maybe context that I'd want.
I spend more time asking follow up questions (without being able to provide even a modicum of solution) in many cases, I try to couch my 'questions answering questions' reply with why I am asking (more typing and explaining) when users don't give me chapter and verse, even if it is mostly 'puff'.
> I now work as a software developer for a startup and often have to interact directly with clients, and when I communicate with them, I always make sure have my desired "call to action" (even if only summarised) within the first sentence.
But that is after they have emailed you right? You cannot summarize anything until you actually have them tell you what is wrong, no matter how long takes them. So yes summarize in the first sentence is always useful and if you don't kow the solution (yet) it never hurts to admit that and say something like, 'but we can try X or see what Y is doing as that will help me understand the issue in more detail' etc.
Customer Support is hard work sometimes, now try doing it with someone who doesn't speak your language very well ;)
The problem is all too often users have no clue what is useful information. Mechanics hear a lot about the color of the car making a funny noise, but nothing about where the noise seems to come from or when it is heard, nor do they get told when the last time the transmission oil was changed even though that might be a useful clue.
> I never like to discourage 'too much' information because frankly 'end users' don't know what they need to tell us in support (that is kind of what our job is right?). I'd much prefer the above than just 'it won't let me log in' - where there maybe context that I'd want.
I agree that more information is sometimes better, but elaborate only after stating the core issue. For example, if you're emailing a provider about being overbilled. Start your email with "I'm writing to you because I have been overbilled and would please like this addressed", then you lay out your case with all the facts that you think could be relevant. But don't start with a whole bunch of facts because the service agent won't yet be in the correct context to know which facts are relevant until after they know what problem you're trying to have solved.
> But that is after they have emailed you right? You cannot summarize anything until you actually have them tell you what is wrong, no matter how long takes them. So yes summarize in the first sentence is always useful and if you don't kow the solution (yet) it never hurts to admit that and say something like, 'but we can try X or see what Y is doing as that will help me understand the issue in more detail' etc.
Sorry, I wasn't entirely clear, but for this part I was not referring to responses to customer service requests, but more for proactive reach outs initiated from our side towards trying to ensure customer retention and (at the moment) we're more of a B2B product so we feel this is worth doing.
As "random" reach outs by a supplier are not always appreciated, we always try to offer something of value/relevance when doing so, with the first sentence being something like "Hi <person name>, We've recently done <something to our product which we feel is relevant to you>, I was wanting to check if this would be useful to you?". I can then perhaps elaborate further on the potentially useful thing to them and also close by stating that I would be happy to do a video call to go through it in more detail if they would like.
What's particularly noteworthy here is that I did a "call to action" which would be low effort on their part, namely to "please at least reply to let me know if this is useful" in the very first sentence. This is actually a bit of a psychological trick where because the recipient has been directly asked to do something in particular, they're more likely to continue reading towards doing this and engage.
Once we started it on our side, I also started to notice that I see this trick very often to my own inbox from completely cold contact direct marketers, their first sentence often ends with something to the effect of "would <time and date> work for you for us to discuss further?", I don't engage with these completely cold contacts, but I see exactly what they're trying to do.
I agree that more information is sometimes better, but elaborate only after stating the core issue. For example, if you're emailing a provider about being overbilled. Start your email with "I'm writing to you because I have been overbilled and would please like this addressed", then you lay out your case with all the facts that you think could be relevant. But don't start with a whole bunch of facts because the service agent won't yet be in the correct context to know which facts are relevant until after they know what problem you're trying to have solved.
> But that is after they have emailed you right? You cannot summarize anything until you actually have them tell you what is wrong, no matter how long takes them. So yes summarize in the first sentence is always useful and if you don't kow the solution (yet) it never hurts to admit that and say something like, 'but we can try X or see what Y is doing as that will help me understand the issue in more detail' etc.
Sorry, I wasn't entirely clear, but for this part I was not referring to responses to customer service requests, but more for proactive reach outs initiated from our side towards trying to ensure customer retention and (at the moment) we're more of a B2B product so we feel this is worth doing.
As "random" reach outs by a supplier are not always appreciated, we always try to offer something of value/relevance when doing so, with the first sentence being something like "Hi <person name>, We've recently done <something to our product which we feel is relevant to you>, I was wanting to check if this would be useful to you?". I can then perhaps elaborate further on the potentially useful thing to them and also close by stating that I would be happy to do a video call to go through it in more detail if they would like.
What's particularly noteworthy here is that I did a "call to action" which would be low effort on their part, namely to "please at least reply to let me know if this is useful" in the very first sentence. This is actually a bit of a psychological trick where because the recipient has been directly asked to do something in particular, they're more likely to continue reading towards doing this and engage.
Once we started it on our side, I also started to notice that I see this trick very often to my own inbox from completely cold contact direct marketers, their first sentence often ends with something to the effect of "would <time and date> work for you for us to discuss further?", I don't engage with these completely cold contacts, but I see exactly what they're trying to do.
Related, but for me it was Dwarf Fortress. The item descriptions aren't exceptionally good per se, they're auto-generated after all. But they employ particularly poignant verbs[1] over more adjective-heavy descriptions. Taking a cue from that style dramatically improved my alt text.
1. like encrusted, encircled, adorned
1. like encrusted, encircled, adorned
Grammatically those are participles and are in fact technically adjectives, even though they are derived from verbs.
Thank you! That's an excellent point.
I played that game for the first time not long ago and found it funny how redundant statuses stack up when a creature gets something on them. It's a weird thing to not have changed after so many years of development.
Something like: Urden McUrist is covered with the blood of Urden McUrist. He is covered with the blood of Urden McUrist. He is covered [...]
Something like: Urden McUrist is covered with the blood of Urden McUrist. He is covered with the blood of Urden McUrist. He is covered [...]
It has a certain charm to it :)
The author says in the first paragraph that he used to play a lot of D&D (dndbeyond.com) and now prefers Dungeon World (dungeon-world.com; PDF is $6). Does anyone know why he might prefer the latter? As context, I play D&D weekly, love it, and am always interested in learning more. Dungeon World is designed to focus on creativity and shared storytelling with simpler mechanics to make the game more fluid. However, there's nothing simpler than having a clear D&D rule for something like fall damage, instead of having the party debate if a player survived the fall. Dungeon World doesn't have fall damage calculator and instead relies in the narrative, presumably from the pre-written story or DM.
Most people who prefer DW would say that D&D sometimes has clear rules for something, but often has no rules, boring rules, or rules that aren't necessarily "fun". Combat, while tactical, tends to be slow and can frequently consume a lot of time in a session, plus the majority of rules and character powers are focused on combat.
If you're playing sessions with a lot of RP, DW will have a much better balance of rules:session-time, it's much easier to prep for, and given how rules-lite D&D really is outside combat, will probably have about the same amount of narrative input. Note that it's not necessarily the "group debating if the player survived", but typically the GM giving the player a choice when they fail to climb the wall, like "you fall and take a little damage, or you slip a little, cursing loudly and alerting the enemies at the top to you".
Done well, it gives the players a lot more agency, and much better buy-in for the story as they're now shaping it, instead of just being along for the ride. I would also say that pre-written narratives aren't really a thing for DW (at least, as far as I know!), so it's really down to what the DM sees as an appropriate penalty or choice, often phrased as "you succeed, but <thing>".
It's not really better or worse than D&D overall, I'd just say that it's much better suited for certain play-styles. If you enjoy tactical gameplay and using miniatures, then D&D (or maybe Pathfinder) are much better options. If the thought of yet another fight makes you want to gouge your eyes out, I'd recommend giving DW a try.
If you're playing sessions with a lot of RP, DW will have a much better balance of rules:session-time, it's much easier to prep for, and given how rules-lite D&D really is outside combat, will probably have about the same amount of narrative input. Note that it's not necessarily the "group debating if the player survived", but typically the GM giving the player a choice when they fail to climb the wall, like "you fall and take a little damage, or you slip a little, cursing loudly and alerting the enemies at the top to you".
Done well, it gives the players a lot more agency, and much better buy-in for the story as they're now shaping it, instead of just being along for the ride. I would also say that pre-written narratives aren't really a thing for DW (at least, as far as I know!), so it's really down to what the DM sees as an appropriate penalty or choice, often phrased as "you succeed, but <thing>".
It's not really better or worse than D&D overall, I'd just say that it's much better suited for certain play-styles. If you enjoy tactical gameplay and using miniatures, then D&D (or maybe Pathfinder) are much better options. If the thought of yet another fight makes you want to gouge your eyes out, I'd recommend giving DW a try.
The player choices and handling of partial success in PBtA games (like dungeon world) really makes them sing. A partial success leads to adding complications, which creates really interesting situations.
The original Apocalypse World book has some really great ideas on how to run a campaign, as well - very worth reading for anyone who runs ttrpgs.
The original Apocalypse World book has some really great ideas on how to run a campaign, as well - very worth reading for anyone who runs ttrpgs.
I had played enough TTRPGs at that point that when I encountered Apocalypse World that I found the advice to generally just be common knowledge. But if you're new to TTRPGs I highly recommend it for good advice even when running traditional TTRPGs.
Dungeon World is a PBTA (Powered by the Apocalypse) game, one of many games inspired by Apocalypse World. I don't know much about DW in particular, other than it's an early PBTA hack and not generally considered one of the better examples of the system anymore, but it still has a lot of fans.
However, these games share a lot in common, usually including a focus on Moves. The GM determines if something is a Move or not. If it's a move the player gets to roll for it, and if it's not a Move, it just happens. Moves tend to cover very broad areas of actions and are lot less specific and nitpicky than D&D rules.
Unlike D&D, the GM also has Moves. These moves are usually tailored to the particular PBTA game and generally include various ways to keep pressure on the players in a way that fits the theme and setting and mood of the particular game. It codifies the GM's job in a way that makes it more approachable for many. D&D is among the most difficult systems to GM and it leads to a shortage of people wanting to GM vs those wanting to play. Experienced DMs over many years learn to be a little looser and how to wing things and improvise and make the jobs easier for themselves. PBTA games are designed to teach the GM how to do this from the start, partly by teaching the players that this is expected and correct.
However, these games share a lot in common, usually including a focus on Moves. The GM determines if something is a Move or not. If it's a move the player gets to roll for it, and if it's not a Move, it just happens. Moves tend to cover very broad areas of actions and are lot less specific and nitpicky than D&D rules.
Unlike D&D, the GM also has Moves. These moves are usually tailored to the particular PBTA game and generally include various ways to keep pressure on the players in a way that fits the theme and setting and mood of the particular game. It codifies the GM's job in a way that makes it more approachable for many. D&D is among the most difficult systems to GM and it leads to a shortage of people wanting to GM vs those wanting to play. Experienced DMs over many years learn to be a little looser and how to wing things and improvise and make the jobs easier for themselves. PBTA games are designed to teach the GM how to do this from the start, partly by teaching the players that this is expected and correct.
Can you recommend some of the better examples of the system these days?
I've played some Monster of the Week and read up on Dungeon World. I've played D&D regularly since 2008. I like the idea of the PBTA system but I've had a hard time justifying leading people into PBTA games since D&D seems to have such a larger ecosystem.
I'd like to take another stab at PBTA games, hoping that looking through a system or two that you thin is a good example of the system might inspire me to pick up a game!
I've played some Monster of the Week and read up on Dungeon World. I've played D&D regularly since 2008. I like the idea of the PBTA system but I've had a hard time justifying leading people into PBTA games since D&D seems to have such a larger ecosystem.
I'd like to take another stab at PBTA games, hoping that looking through a system or two that you thin is a good example of the system might inspire me to pick up a game!
I've been playing Ironsworn: Starforged (the sci-fi version of Ironsworn with similar but not identical rules; it's a solo-friendly PBTA game) for about 2 weeks, and as a generally non-creative person, it is stretching my brain in the best way. I can barely get my D&D 5e group to play D&D 5e (it's fizzled out completely now) let alone an alternate RPG so I joined a Play-by-Post game of Starforged that was just starting up. You can play it solo or co-op or guided (i.e. with a GM). We're playing it co-op and we're playing 4 player even though the game recommends 1 to 3 players. So we all have to be creative and figure out the rules together (we're also on the starforged discord where we can participate in discussion about the rules and ways to interpret them), as well as implement the best practices of play-by-post but we seem to be meshing very well so far.
One catch is you need more than the core rulebook. You'll need the asset cards, which you can download and print but it's easier to just buy the cards. (edit: or you can just copy the images of the specific cards you pick for your character into its own document instead.) And the reference book which is spiral bound so it can lay flat might be useful, although lately I've just been looking up each move in the index of the main rulebook instead. There is a free reference for the moves in the playkit as well.[0] I see they also have a preview version of the game you can get there.
[0] https://www.ironswornrpg.com/downloads
One catch is you need more than the core rulebook. You'll need the asset cards, which you can download and print but it's easier to just buy the cards. (edit: or you can just copy the images of the specific cards you pick for your character into its own document instead.) And the reference book which is spiral bound so it can lay flat might be useful, although lately I've just been looking up each move in the index of the main rulebook instead. There is a free reference for the moves in the playkit as well.[0] I see they also have a preview version of the game you can get there.
[0] https://www.ironswornrpg.com/downloads
Ultimately a role-playing game comes down to a more organized game of Let's Pretend. Some people like to add on a heavy dose of recreational accounting and/or simulationism. Some people just want a few light rules to give their pretending some structure and an ample supply of narrative prompts to help when invention's running dry.
Does spending hours and hours looking for quirks in the complex rules to make a super-powerful character that's optimized for damage output per round sound like fun?
Does spending a few minutes picking a set of attributes and getting right down to making up a story with your friends over some beer and pizza sound like fun?
Does spending two hours working through highly detailed rules to simulate about five seconds of in-game combat as part of a multi-year-long campaign sound like fun?
Does spending two hours with simple rules that boil combat down to a die roll or three and the option to alter the occasional roll with a limited supply of "Wait, That's Not What Happened" tokens to tell a short story with a beginning, middle, and an end sound like fun?
Does spending hundreds of dollars on exquisitely detailed rulebooks and supplements, with new editions every few years, sound like fun? There's a new "2024" edition of D&D coming out and it's $180 list for a bundle of the PHB, DMG, and MM in physical and digital copies, maybe plus a subscription to the online service for everyone in the game, maybe plus a couple more physical copies of one book or another provided by the players. I'm sure there'll be a bunch of pretty artwork in there, I have the 5e PHB/DMG and they are gorgeous.
Does spending six bucks on a ten-page PDF, plus making a dozen copies on the office laserjet so everyone at the table can have the full rules at hand, including your brokest friends, sound like fun?
It's perfectly valid if the expensive, complicated options sound like fun to you. Sometimes complication is fun. But sometimes it gets in the way of fun.
Does spending hours and hours looking for quirks in the complex rules to make a super-powerful character that's optimized for damage output per round sound like fun?
Does spending a few minutes picking a set of attributes and getting right down to making up a story with your friends over some beer and pizza sound like fun?
Does spending two hours working through highly detailed rules to simulate about five seconds of in-game combat as part of a multi-year-long campaign sound like fun?
Does spending two hours with simple rules that boil combat down to a die roll or three and the option to alter the occasional roll with a limited supply of "Wait, That's Not What Happened" tokens to tell a short story with a beginning, middle, and an end sound like fun?
Does spending hundreds of dollars on exquisitely detailed rulebooks and supplements, with new editions every few years, sound like fun? There's a new "2024" edition of D&D coming out and it's $180 list for a bundle of the PHB, DMG, and MM in physical and digital copies, maybe plus a subscription to the online service for everyone in the game, maybe plus a couple more physical copies of one book or another provided by the players. I'm sure there'll be a bunch of pretty artwork in there, I have the 5e PHB/DMG and they are gorgeous.
Does spending six bucks on a ten-page PDF, plus making a dozen copies on the office laserjet so everyone at the table can have the full rules at hand, including your brokest friends, sound like fun?
It's perfectly valid if the expensive, complicated options sound like fun to you. Sometimes complication is fun. But sometimes it gets in the way of fun.
Dungeon World is a Powered by the Apocalypse game. It's both ligher in rules and gives the players increased control over the narrative of the game. It's a narrative TTRPG. If you've played FATE or Blades in the Dark you've played a narrative RPG.
Dungeon World is an open game and there is an SRD for it: https://www.dwsrd.org/
In the case of falling, the GM would assign damage based on how dangerous it is: https://www.dwsrd.org/playing/playing-the-game.html#damage
Bear in mind that HP essentially doesn't scale with level. PCs are likely to have an HP maximum between 15 and 25 for the entire campaign.
If you're conscious, the GM might let you Defy Danger to mitigate some of that, but you have to describe what your character is doing to achieve that: https://www.dwsrd.org/playing/basic-moves.html#defy-danger
If it was a fall from a great height, you'd just skip to Last Breath: https://www.dwsrd.org/playing/special-moves.html#last-breath
There's no specific rules for it because the general rules are good enough, especially considering how often falling damage actually comes up
Dungeon World is an open game and there is an SRD for it: https://www.dwsrd.org/
In the case of falling, the GM would assign damage based on how dangerous it is: https://www.dwsrd.org/playing/playing-the-game.html#damage
Bear in mind that HP essentially doesn't scale with level. PCs are likely to have an HP maximum between 15 and 25 for the entire campaign.
If you're conscious, the GM might let you Defy Danger to mitigate some of that, but you have to describe what your character is doing to achieve that: https://www.dwsrd.org/playing/basic-moves.html#defy-danger
If it was a fall from a great height, you'd just skip to Last Breath: https://www.dwsrd.org/playing/special-moves.html#last-breath
There's no specific rules for it because the general rules are good enough, especially considering how often falling damage actually comes up
> However, there's nothing simpler than having a clear D&D rule for something like fall damage, instead of having the party debate if a player survived the fall.
There is no party debate. The person running the game figures out what they think is most reasonable. If you think that's a lot of trust, it is, but it's necessary for a smooth running game.
As an aside, even rules light games I play has a rule for fall damage. But even DnD 5e doesn't have rules for falling onto softer surfaces. What if you fall on 10 foot thick foam? What about 1 inch thick foam? Into a bush? What if I use create food to create a pool of bread at the bottom of a cliff we're climbing so if someone falls they take less damage?
Do we need fall damage rules for everything players could fall on? Are you going to tell a player that falling on a stone floor is the same damage as falling on a 10 foot thick piece of foam?
Tabletop RPGs shine on the edges because no computer, much less a set of mechanical rules written for humans to understand, can account for every situation. And even if they did, you wouldn't want to spend 10 minutes looking up every rule anytime someone did anything.
There is no party debate. The person running the game figures out what they think is most reasonable. If you think that's a lot of trust, it is, but it's necessary for a smooth running game.
As an aside, even rules light games I play has a rule for fall damage. But even DnD 5e doesn't have rules for falling onto softer surfaces. What if you fall on 10 foot thick foam? What about 1 inch thick foam? Into a bush? What if I use create food to create a pool of bread at the bottom of a cliff we're climbing so if someone falls they take less damage?
Do we need fall damage rules for everything players could fall on? Are you going to tell a player that falling on a stone floor is the same damage as falling on a 10 foot thick piece of foam?
Tabletop RPGs shine on the edges because no computer, much less a set of mechanical rules written for humans to understand, can account for every situation. And even if they did, you wouldn't want to spend 10 minutes looking up every rule anytime someone did anything.
Because a lot of these d&d alternatives are fairly cheap I think it's worth your time just to buy a few here and there and give them a read (dungeon world, index card rpg, blades in the dark, vaesen, torchbearer, forbidden lands, not d&d adjacent but I'll just also mention mothership, I'm not going to really mention pathfinder here because it's very much still a fork of d&d though their action system I think beats the 5e action system).
It kinda opens your mind to what is great about d&d (for me their well defined settings and a lot of expansiveness of their class subclass system.. that and a ton of nostalgia, I played my first game of redbox in the 80s) and where it lacks. It's kind of the middle of the road game, it does a lot of stuff reasonably well but some of these other games specialize the gameplay in some very interesting ways.
Often as a group you probably aren't going to change systems but, and especially if you are your groups gamemaster, a lot of these little rpgs probably have very poachable rules or systems that could help your game run smoother, faster or push your game in new directions.
Pretty soon you'll end up with a shelf (or directory of pdfs) of d&d adjacent books. RPG sourcebooks for games you may never play, but all of those books are farmable for a d&d campaign.
If you are your tables 5e DM, I will take some time out to promote the best 3rd party monster manual i've come accross 'Flee Mortals!'. It introduces a alternative system for monsters (mostly bosses) in combat called 'action oriented monsters', there are some videos on youtube if you search. Great book, fun systems.
It kinda opens your mind to what is great about d&d (for me their well defined settings and a lot of expansiveness of their class subclass system.. that and a ton of nostalgia, I played my first game of redbox in the 80s) and where it lacks. It's kind of the middle of the road game, it does a lot of stuff reasonably well but some of these other games specialize the gameplay in some very interesting ways.
Often as a group you probably aren't going to change systems but, and especially if you are your groups gamemaster, a lot of these little rpgs probably have very poachable rules or systems that could help your game run smoother, faster or push your game in new directions.
Pretty soon you'll end up with a shelf (or directory of pdfs) of d&d adjacent books. RPG sourcebooks for games you may never play, but all of those books are farmable for a d&d campaign.
If you are your tables 5e DM, I will take some time out to promote the best 3rd party monster manual i've come accross 'Flee Mortals!'. It introduces a alternative system for monsters (mostly bosses) in combat called 'action oriented monsters', there are some videos on youtube if you search. Great book, fun systems.
> RPG sourcebooks for games you may never play, but all of those books are farmable for a d&d campaign.
I have purchased almost every printed GURPS 4e book and a fair number of 3e books for exactly this reason. None of my players have ever been interested in the system (I like it a lot, but won't force it because I'd rather play a game I enjoy but isn't in my top 3 systems than lose a group forcing a game I really like but they hate). However, the books are so well written and provide a wealth of references and ideas that when running other games I've borrowed liberally from them. I think I referenced some of them more than my CoC books when running a CoC campaign a few years back. And a lot of my OSR books are basically the same. I only ever run DCC or C&C these days in the D&D-adjacent space but keep getting other books and modules for other D&D-ish systems since they can be ported to those systems so easily.
I have purchased almost every printed GURPS 4e book and a fair number of 3e books for exactly this reason. None of my players have ever been interested in the system (I like it a lot, but won't force it because I'd rather play a game I enjoy but isn't in my top 3 systems than lose a group forcing a game I really like but they hate). However, the books are so well written and provide a wealth of references and ideas that when running other games I've borrowed liberally from them. I think I referenced some of them more than my CoC books when running a CoC campaign a few years back. And a lot of my OSR books are basically the same. I only ever run DCC or C&C these days in the D&D-adjacent space but keep getting other books and modules for other D&D-ish systems since they can be ported to those systems so easily.
Yeah i've been thinking about the dcc spellcasting system and how you could homebrew it into d&d to make playing a wizard a little more spicy.
> However, there's nothing simpler than having a clear D&D rule for something like fall damage, instead of having the party debate if a player survived the fall.
It's simpler, but it's not necessarily easier. I don't remember the rules for fall-damage, off-hand - and it's certainly easier to just say, "you take 2 HP of damage" than it is to dig out or start googling around for a rule.
I play a lot of D&D as well, and to me, it's a great framework for collaborative storytelling - but that's because I'm familiar with the flow of the game. That's not true for everyone, and for some people, it's more fun to have fewer rules and a more collaborative decision-making process.
It's simpler, but it's not necessarily easier. I don't remember the rules for fall-damage, off-hand - and it's certainly easier to just say, "you take 2 HP of damage" than it is to dig out or start googling around for a rule.
I play a lot of D&D as well, and to me, it's a great framework for collaborative storytelling - but that's because I'm familiar with the flow of the game. That's not true for everyone, and for some people, it's more fun to have fewer rules and a more collaborative decision-making process.
I don’t even play DnD and I know it’s 1d6 bludgeoning per 10ft fall damage with some very high cap that is unlikely to matter for player characters.
I heard it once on a podcast. Rules esoterica sticks to me like glue. I’ll remember 1000 of those rules before I remember the name of some person in a fantasy world and what exactly they were doing.
I heard it once on a podcast. Rules esoterica sticks to me like glue. I’ll remember 1000 of those rules before I remember the name of some person in a fantasy world and what exactly they were doing.
D&D has rules for fall damage that make no sense, worse they encourage people to jump from extreme heights because the risks are well understood.
In 5e players fall at 500 feet per round which works out to 57 MPH, take the same damage falling 30 feet onto a stone floor, pile of hay, or a lake and ignore what you’re carrying. The temptation is to codify more realistic rules IE you fall up to 500 feet in the first round and up to 1,000 feet every round after that but complex rules don’t necessarily add much to the game and it’s always going to be a massive simplification.
By comparison ‘No Rules’ just means do something reasonable for the situation, arguing about it is more an issue for your table not the game.
In 5e players fall at 500 feet per round which works out to 57 MPH, take the same damage falling 30 feet onto a stone floor, pile of hay, or a lake and ignore what you’re carrying. The temptation is to codify more realistic rules IE you fall up to 500 feet in the first round and up to 1,000 feet every round after that but complex rules don’t necessarily add much to the game and it’s always going to be a massive simplification.
By comparison ‘No Rules’ just means do something reasonable for the situation, arguing about it is more an issue for your table not the game.
> D&D has rules for fall damage that make no sense, worse they encourage people to jump from extreme heights because the risks are well understood.
This has nothing on MMOs, where everybody constantly takes jumps that they know will cause severe damage (say, 30-80% of the amount that would kill you) because it's faster and damage heals.
This has nothing on MMOs, where everybody constantly takes jumps that they know will cause severe damage (say, 30-80% of the amount that would kill you) because it's faster and damage heals.
> same damage falling 30 feet onto a stone floor, pile of hay, or a lake
Pretty sure it's the DM's job to adjust that. Eg "You break a toe from hitting the stone floor. Roll 2d6 for damage"
That aside, I'd say DnD is more like video games than real life. Most games have minimal fall damage because it's fun to jump. Also consider Mario games where you can kill an enemy by landing on them, but never kys by landing on bricks
Pretty sure it's the DM's job to adjust that. Eg "You break a toe from hitting the stone floor. Roll 2d6 for damage"
That aside, I'd say DnD is more like video games than real life. Most games have minimal fall damage because it's fun to jump. Also consider Mario games where you can kill an enemy by landing on them, but never kys by landing on bricks
[deleted]
Different rpg systems provide different experience with their rules. Dungeon World is much better than DnD at providing a cinematic experience that just feels loose and fun. Even if you want a lot of clear rules, D&D is a really bad game at that, and there are better systems (Gurps does that and plays much faster for example). My favorite system in Burning Wheel which is great at bringing out character development and pushing the story forward really focused on what the characters are striving for.
[deleted]
Not everyone likes having to have rules or a table for everything. For some people, they're okay with the DM adjudicating a ruling and letting dice tell them whether there's a success, a success with consequences, or a failure. Personally that's not for me except in certain small doses, but I'm more of a GURPS player than a D&D player, which is its own different play style altogether.
You'd need to ask the author of the article.
I backed the original DW project and was a user of Google+ in that time and place where the "Old School Renaissance" (my preference) clashed with "Story Gamers" - "you see me now, a veteran of a thousand psychic wars".
From those interactions I could say that preference for DW could range from simple technical preferences to deep-seated politics resulting from trauma.
I backed the original DW project and was a user of Google+ in that time and place where the "Old School Renaissance" (my preference) clashed with "Story Gamers" - "you see me now, a veteran of a thousand psychic wars".
From those interactions I could say that preference for DW could range from simple technical preferences to deep-seated politics resulting from trauma.
> However, there's nothing simpler than having a clear D&D rule for something like fall damage, instead of having the party debate if a player survived the fall.
I don't think anyone's suggesting having the party debate things.
D&D has a bunch of precise mechanical rules for combat, and very few for anything else. This makes sense for a game about simulating small-squad combat (which is what D&D started life as), but it's not really what you want for a game about narrative and roleplay. It means combat tends to take up a disproportionate amount of playtime in D&D (because you have all these mechanical rules, and the multiple-round system), when the combat actually isn't such a big part of the narrative or the fun; I've found that most successful/fun D&D groups tend to skip the fiddlier rules (e.g. how many people actually bother with full encumbrance calculations?) and even handwave away entire combats ("you kill the goblins, don't bother rolling").
Think about how you handle conflicts in non-combat parts of the game. If you're trying to persuade the King to overrule the evil chancellor or whatever, how do you do that? You certainly don't have n rounds of following precise calculations and looking up tables about each step of persuasion. Generally you either have narrative steps towards your goal (you break into the chancellor's vaults to collect the papers that prove he's been embezzling, you bribe a reporter to frame him in a compromising position, ...), and/or the GM decides whether your ideas were clever enough to succeed, or maybe the GM assigns a difficulty (modified by the previous two points) and then you do one roll.
In my experience even people who like D&D tend to enjoy sessions where they're doing stuff like that more than doing a series of combats (except for the occasional powergamer type who really does just want to kill as many orcs as possible for 90 minutes - but if you're after "creativity and shared storytelling" then you're presumably not that kind of gamer); often when people look back on a campaign their favourite session was one with no (or very few) combats but one where interesting character moments or story developments happened. (And conversely, more than once I've had a fun session where we were all doing some great roleplay, riffing off each other, and then we hit a big combat and everything just ground to a halt as we had to dig out dice and tables and stop the story for half an hour while we did a bunch of mechanics)
So what if you handled combat the way you handle other conflicts? The GM takes narrative reasons why one side should win or lose, gives the players points for creativity if they come up with a good idea, then comes up with a difficulty and you make one roll. Or maybe you do several rounds of that, but based on the narrative flow of the combat, not just crunching numbers. In my experience that makes for a much more fun, interesting game.
(I actually enjoy, like, Mordenheim or Kill Team, which is the kind of game that D&D originally was. But that's as a competitive game first and roleplaying second. Detailed mechanical simulation makes sense when you're competing about who's better at combat. But it's a waste when you're trying to do collaborative storytelling)
I don't think anyone's suggesting having the party debate things.
D&D has a bunch of precise mechanical rules for combat, and very few for anything else. This makes sense for a game about simulating small-squad combat (which is what D&D started life as), but it's not really what you want for a game about narrative and roleplay. It means combat tends to take up a disproportionate amount of playtime in D&D (because you have all these mechanical rules, and the multiple-round system), when the combat actually isn't such a big part of the narrative or the fun; I've found that most successful/fun D&D groups tend to skip the fiddlier rules (e.g. how many people actually bother with full encumbrance calculations?) and even handwave away entire combats ("you kill the goblins, don't bother rolling").
Think about how you handle conflicts in non-combat parts of the game. If you're trying to persuade the King to overrule the evil chancellor or whatever, how do you do that? You certainly don't have n rounds of following precise calculations and looking up tables about each step of persuasion. Generally you either have narrative steps towards your goal (you break into the chancellor's vaults to collect the papers that prove he's been embezzling, you bribe a reporter to frame him in a compromising position, ...), and/or the GM decides whether your ideas were clever enough to succeed, or maybe the GM assigns a difficulty (modified by the previous two points) and then you do one roll.
In my experience even people who like D&D tend to enjoy sessions where they're doing stuff like that more than doing a series of combats (except for the occasional powergamer type who really does just want to kill as many orcs as possible for 90 minutes - but if you're after "creativity and shared storytelling" then you're presumably not that kind of gamer); often when people look back on a campaign their favourite session was one with no (or very few) combats but one where interesting character moments or story developments happened. (And conversely, more than once I've had a fun session where we were all doing some great roleplay, riffing off each other, and then we hit a big combat and everything just ground to a halt as we had to dig out dice and tables and stop the story for half an hour while we did a bunch of mechanics)
So what if you handled combat the way you handle other conflicts? The GM takes narrative reasons why one side should win or lose, gives the players points for creativity if they come up with a good idea, then comes up with a difficulty and you make one roll. Or maybe you do several rounds of that, but based on the narrative flow of the combat, not just crunching numbers. In my experience that makes for a much more fun, interesting game.
(I actually enjoy, like, Mordenheim or Kill Team, which is the kind of game that D&D originally was. But that's as a competitive game first and roleplaying second. Detailed mechanical simulation makes sense when you're competing about who's better at combat. But it's a waste when you're trying to do collaborative storytelling)
I've to write alt tags daily and I still suck at it, since I suck at describing things (which is weird, since I write documentation every day). I might start attending my friend's D&D sessions just to improve on that.
For now, I wrote a tool[1] that uses AI to do the job for me.
[1]: https://git.sr.ht/~jamesponddotco/allalt
For now, I wrote a tool[1] that uses AI to do the job for me.
[1]: https://git.sr.ht/~jamesponddotco/allalt
I've been running D&D/TTPRGs for my group for 35 years at this point - with a few life breaks here and there - and its genuinely taught me so many skills that are usefully in life.
Its an heady mix of things that really will stretch your mind in many ways at once. I love them. All kids (of all ages) should try them a few times.
For the record I've nearly always run TotM except when for some very complicated things that really need that extra tactical oomf.
Its an heady mix of things that really will stretch your mind in many ways at once. I love them. All kids (of all ages) should try them a few times.
For the record I've nearly always run TotM except when for some very complicated things that really need that extra tactical oomf.
I have great trouble writing good descriptions of products I build at work (I’m in software). Often I find there are just too many possible ways for me to describe the thing that I get stuck… and inevitably end up with descriptions that simply aren’t very effective. It just seems really hard to flatten an inherently multifaceted or complex thing into a linear narrative.
This topic is slightly different than this post, but there seems to be some useful advice that is applicable to my particular problem. I can “see” what my product is, but can’t really describe it well. Next time I’ll try to focus on what’s important first… which of course sounds obvious, but isn’t how my brain seems to want to describe things.
Is there any other reading out there that people would recommend?
This topic is slightly different than this post, but there seems to be some useful advice that is applicable to my particular problem. I can “see” what my product is, but can’t really describe it well. Next time I’ll try to focus on what’s important first… which of course sounds obvious, but isn’t how my brain seems to want to describe things.
Is there any other reading out there that people would recommend?
I use the "pyramid format". Conclusion first. Main points with little explanation next. Explanation of main points after that. Details last. That way someone can stop reading at any point and still have a complete view at some level of detail.
Some people find that determining what the conclusion is, is difficult to begin with. Or that there are many conclusions. And, how do you present those details? Chronologically?
A helpful techniques I've picked up (that some people absolutely hate); write down the individual statements on post-it notes. That way you can reshuffle. What would the story look like if A is 'the conclusion'? What if we start off with B? What does it look like if we present the supporting evidence chronologically? What if we present it in a more layered way? ("the colonel couldn't have done it, as on the day of the murder, he was in another city")
Another tip is for the introduction, the lead up to the conclusion; start with listing the facts that are common knowledge, then the fact that raised the question to be answered; then you reach the conclusion. (E.g. Every week, grandma bakes a pie and leaves it to cool in the window. Last week was no exception. But when she went to retrieve the pie, it was half-eaten! The culprit was the cat!) This setting the scene can give the reader some context. In a real-world example, the known facts might include your company's strategy or objectives, underscoring why people should care about your advice.
A helpful techniques I've picked up (that some people absolutely hate); write down the individual statements on post-it notes. That way you can reshuffle. What would the story look like if A is 'the conclusion'? What if we start off with B? What does it look like if we present the supporting evidence chronologically? What if we present it in a more layered way? ("the colonel couldn't have done it, as on the day of the murder, he was in another city")
Another tip is for the introduction, the lead up to the conclusion; start with listing the facts that are common knowledge, then the fact that raised the question to be answered; then you reach the conclusion. (E.g. Every week, grandma bakes a pie and leaves it to cool in the window. Last week was no exception. But when she went to retrieve the pie, it was half-eaten! The culprit was the cat!) This setting the scene can give the reader some context. In a real-world example, the known facts might include your company's strategy or objectives, underscoring why people should care about your advice.
This approach is also known as the "Minto Pyramid." The website "Untools" has a well-written webpage that explains this: https://untools.co/minto-pyramid/
Untools itself also inspired some good discussions on this forum (2020, 137 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23339830
Untools itself also inspired some good discussions on this forum (2020, 137 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23339830
Nice link, thanks! I was put on to this by someone who had done defence work in their past. They used the "Concept of Operations" for their preferred document style which I also like.
Though this isn't a specific reading, there is a useful habit you can try out: you can start to regularly read well-written newspaper articles, because a focus of written journalism is to break down complex issues into understandable stories. These can provide exemplars for how to approach your own writing.
Consider a recent article in the Financial Times about rising sea temperatures [1][2]. The topic is vast and complicated, which is perhaps relatable to your perspective, yet it's the job of the writer to produce the linear narrative that you mentioned. How does the writer do this?
---
The article presents the key idea up front with a headline ("The dangerous effects of rising sea temperatures"), and then adds context with a sub-headline ("Scientists are increasingly concerned that the world’s oceans are approaching the limits of their capacity to absorb heat").
To ease the reader into the topic, the author then begins by focusing on a human subject by writing: "In 30 years of studying the oceans, Matthew England has learnt to understand their irregular yet constant rhythms — the cycles of wind, temperature and atmospheric changes that interact with the masses of water covering most of the Earth’s surface.
The author continues: "But what he has seen in the past 15 months has shocked him. Global sea surface temperatures have reached and stayed at record levels, fuelling heatwaves and melting sea ice. Temperatures in the north Atlantic waters he has been studying, including around the UK and Ireland, were described last year as “beyond extreme” by the EU’s Earth observation service."
The author later "zooms out" as a narrative technique—similar to the one described in the submitted article—that provides wider context for the problem that the interviewee is describing by presenting cases of natural disasters.
To get deeper into the subject, the author then includes perspectives from various other researchers who study the phenomenon, and then dives deeper into competing theories about the immediate causes behind these environmental changes.
---
So, in your context, you could begin describing how your software tool solves some problem by describing a human user who is facing a specific yet common issue that is frustrating. After the reader then grasps what the problem is, you could write about how your software tool fixes the problem.
But this is just one approach of many. Another author might have taken a "lede-nut graf" [3] approach, where the bottom-line conclusion is put in the first sentence as the "lede," followed by the "nut graf" of a paragraph providing additional context and motivation to read the rest of the article. With this approach, you could skip the focus on a human user, and instead jump right into a sentence that claims your software tool solves a specific problem (especially if the problem is a well-known one).
One of the best methods I've found to get better at a particular skill is to immerse yourself in high-quality exemplars of what you're trying to do. Even without taking notes, you can naturally pick up lessons from what you're experiencing. For this reason, a habit of reading well-written articles could help with your own ability to describe complicated concepts in a way that's more accessible.
[1] Link: https://www.ft.com/content/76c3747d-f068-467a-98f9-4ed687dcb...
[2] Gift link (viewable up to three times): https://on.ft.com/3LJJmBT
[3] More on nut grafs: https://www.theopennotebook.com/2014/04/29/nailing-the-nut-g...
Consider a recent article in the Financial Times about rising sea temperatures [1][2]. The topic is vast and complicated, which is perhaps relatable to your perspective, yet it's the job of the writer to produce the linear narrative that you mentioned. How does the writer do this?
---
The article presents the key idea up front with a headline ("The dangerous effects of rising sea temperatures"), and then adds context with a sub-headline ("Scientists are increasingly concerned that the world’s oceans are approaching the limits of their capacity to absorb heat").
To ease the reader into the topic, the author then begins by focusing on a human subject by writing: "In 30 years of studying the oceans, Matthew England has learnt to understand their irregular yet constant rhythms — the cycles of wind, temperature and atmospheric changes that interact with the masses of water covering most of the Earth’s surface.
The author continues: "But what he has seen in the past 15 months has shocked him. Global sea surface temperatures have reached and stayed at record levels, fuelling heatwaves and melting sea ice. Temperatures in the north Atlantic waters he has been studying, including around the UK and Ireland, were described last year as “beyond extreme” by the EU’s Earth observation service."
The author later "zooms out" as a narrative technique—similar to the one described in the submitted article—that provides wider context for the problem that the interviewee is describing by presenting cases of natural disasters.
To get deeper into the subject, the author then includes perspectives from various other researchers who study the phenomenon, and then dives deeper into competing theories about the immediate causes behind these environmental changes.
---
So, in your context, you could begin describing how your software tool solves some problem by describing a human user who is facing a specific yet common issue that is frustrating. After the reader then grasps what the problem is, you could write about how your software tool fixes the problem.
But this is just one approach of many. Another author might have taken a "lede-nut graf" [3] approach, where the bottom-line conclusion is put in the first sentence as the "lede," followed by the "nut graf" of a paragraph providing additional context and motivation to read the rest of the article. With this approach, you could skip the focus on a human user, and instead jump right into a sentence that claims your software tool solves a specific problem (especially if the problem is a well-known one).
One of the best methods I've found to get better at a particular skill is to immerse yourself in high-quality exemplars of what you're trying to do. Even without taking notes, you can naturally pick up lessons from what you're experiencing. For this reason, a habit of reading well-written articles could help with your own ability to describe complicated concepts in a way that's more accessible.
[1] Link: https://www.ft.com/content/76c3747d-f068-467a-98f9-4ed687dcb...
[2] Gift link (viewable up to three times): https://on.ft.com/3LJJmBT
[3] More on nut grafs: https://www.theopennotebook.com/2014/04/29/nailing-the-nut-g...
I have heard that a DM is a full-time job, and I agree full heartily after reading this.
It depends a whole, whole bunch on what exactly you do.
Custom setting with great attention to detail and an entire campaign mapped out? Every possible semi-important NPC with a biography and set of motivations and stats for every place they might go in the whole campaign?
Yeah, shitloads of work, hundreds of hours, maybe thousands.
Or you can have a basic setting and a little town with some adventure hooks, a few partially fleshed out items and NPCs, a few more randomly-generated ones for roles like “shop keeper” or “bar patron” when you don’t have anything better, crib some other setting’s gods and politics and what have you, and only fill more stuff in if the players take an interest. They really engaged with that random street juggler and are already trying to figure out how she fits into the plot? Well… she didn’t, but now she does! Time to pick a clue or hook to attach to her and put her in their path again. Only write enough runway to get through the next session, and take your writing & prep where the players go. Saves tons of time, doesn’t necessarily make for a less-satisfying game than an intricately constructed complete world (often, it’s better)
Run a decent pre-written module? Usually not much work at all, just read the whole thing once then refresh yourself on the next one part before each session. Provided you’re already comfortable with the game and setting, anyway.
Custom setting with great attention to detail and an entire campaign mapped out? Every possible semi-important NPC with a biography and set of motivations and stats for every place they might go in the whole campaign?
Yeah, shitloads of work, hundreds of hours, maybe thousands.
Or you can have a basic setting and a little town with some adventure hooks, a few partially fleshed out items and NPCs, a few more randomly-generated ones for roles like “shop keeper” or “bar patron” when you don’t have anything better, crib some other setting’s gods and politics and what have you, and only fill more stuff in if the players take an interest. They really engaged with that random street juggler and are already trying to figure out how she fits into the plot? Well… she didn’t, but now she does! Time to pick a clue or hook to attach to her and put her in their path again. Only write enough runway to get through the next session, and take your writing & prep where the players go. Saves tons of time, doesn’t necessarily make for a less-satisfying game than an intricately constructed complete world (often, it’s better)
Run a decent pre-written module? Usually not much work at all, just read the whole thing once then refresh yourself on the next one part before each session. Provided you’re already comfortable with the game and setting, anyway.
As a DM, it's certainly something that's very easy to sink time into. And rewarding, too!
I agree! I'd expect my DM to have knowledge of multiple worlds so that he can pull out things such as Solamnia knights got caught up in a time-space torrent and appear in Greyhawk.
I guess it takes a lot of reading and planning.
I guess it takes a lot of reading and planning.
Ya can't just do time/space torrents without throwing Sigil into the mix. And spelljamming. And a kender.
(I really, really miss Planescape.)
(I really, really miss Planescape.)
Yep, although I myself never played tabletop DND gamed, Planescape and Return to the Tomb of Horrors are my two favorite readings.
Oooh, you'd be disappointed by my style, I think.
I know the broad strokes of the D&D "canon", but I have no idea who the Solamnia knights are, I can name maybe five of the gods of the pantheon, and not much else.
I prefer to run homebrew games, personally - let the players inform, decide, and deduce the world.
I know the broad strokes of the D&D "canon", but I have no idea who the Solamnia knights are, I can name maybe five of the gods of the pantheon, and not much else.
I prefer to run homebrew games, personally - let the players inform, decide, and deduce the world.
> Solamnia knights
Krynn/Dragonlance
Krynn/Dragonlance
Nevermind, everyone has their own style.
Yep. As long as everyone is at the table is having fun, there's no wrong way to play.
The First Law trilogy by Joe Abercrombie starts with a fantastic inversion of this writing advice that sets you up for the tone of the entire series's humor, I highly recommend it!
Great advice. In my last homebrew campaign, the characters were insane and in a mental hospital. For box text, I purposely broke the bottom-line-up-front rule and had them, e.g., fixate on random irrelevant things as the danger built towards them. It was wonderfully effective at reinforcing the “you have trouble processing reality” aspect of the campaign. So unless you want your audience confused and disoriented, put the important part first!
I often print out my D&D maps (say, from a scan of one I've drawn), transcribe important features on to it using coloured pens and run the game from that. Whitespace and simplicity is a feature here... "photo-realistic" maps with stone textures and artistic doodles get in the way of usability.
I've recently been working on a web-based tool designed to make
character creation in DnD easier: https://tabletopy.com/fantasy-character-generator.html
character creation in DnD easier: https://tabletopy.com/fantasy-character-generator.html
Character creation is hard? Also I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. I generated an elf druid (the type I just created one of manually) and it gave me one less language than I should have, no wild shape, which feels pretty important for a druid character, one less spell than I should have and no actual details about what the spells do mechanically. Also I don't recognise half these classes from 5E, were they in an earlier edition of the game? And where's all my skills?
Likewise, I've long encouraged people to compose the email first, then come back and summarize the most important part into the subject line. An email with a subject of "question" might just get deleted out of annoyance.
D&D can teach so many things.
RyanAdamas(1)
Most people intuitively describe images from foreground to background or left to right, a bit like they are mentally completing a checklist of all the things to describe. As correctly noted by the author, describing by importance first has the added benefit of allowing screen reader users to skip irrelevant/uninteresting images early.
Compare:
Torn-up painting in a gallery, observers standing in front of the work.
vs.
Gallery interior, people standing in front of a painting with visible damage.