1.15 Helps the DM run it

[bryce0lynch]

Cross-references.
Give advice
"place any treasure you wish"
placing text before the read aloud if important. But that's really first things first?
This seems generic. Doesnt it all help the DM, or s supposed to?
guard rotations.
vista overvews of big viesuals
again, just common problems?

 

[bryce0lynch]

Yeah, fucking dih. isn't this what everything is supposed to do?

 

[bryce0lynch]

Cross References
Adventures are full of things that need something ELSE. Farmer Fred wants a red cow, or the party find a blue key, or Mike is in love with Mary. In each case there is more information about the other thing somewhere else in the adventures. A cross-reference, ro a room number or page number, helps the DM find the information. In a game where you can plead the gods for "the path to the blue gate", the DM needs a way to find the blue gate easily. Or, when they question the barkeep for Mary's location, a location cross-reference gives the DM that information.

Imagine the party confronts a tower. This princess they are looking for IS in this castle, but it is locked by special magic. Only three keys can unlock the door. [#6, #14, #18.] This tells the DM exactly where to consult when the party casts their "locate keys" spell, or uses the ships sensors, or whatever.

More situations and less examples needed.
because its a lame write up

 

[bryce0lynch]

"Place any treasure you wish"
It is sometimes tempting to instruct the GM to place a treasure, creature, encounter, NPC, or other element in to the adventure. "Have the Minotaur lair contain any treasure you wish." This is the road to danger! Isn't the GM free to make ANY changes they wish to the adventure? And isn't the DM free to replace all of the treasures? And all of the monsters? And the entire adventure? Which makes the value add from the designer what, exactly? The point here is that the designer is adding value by doing the work FOR the GM. Shifting the work on to the GM, through these phrases, does not align with that value.

There is a difference between a rubble-filled hallway that the design includes that allows for the DM to expand the adventure. IN this case the designer is leaving room for the DM to include their own creations and not diminishing their own work or requiring the DM to do additional work to use the product. This stands in contrast to, say, the cave the dragon holds the princess in, the object of the entire adventure, being described as "Create your own cave and place the dragon, the princess, his minions, and his treasure as you see fit."


Likewise the obligatory "you can change any of the place names in this adventure to align with your own game world." This is, of course, within the purview of the DM. Just as continuing to breathe air is in the purview of the DM, as well as a host of other things they can do. It's not necessary to point this out explicitly.

There's clearly a difference between "This hallway could link up to one of your own dungeons." and shifting the load on to the shoulders of the GM.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

If you're going for a "Do This, Not That: format, you may want to emphasize that your problem is not with the lack of content or the inclusion of sections that require further DM work, but rather the approach taken to delineating areas of the game where changes can be made without adversely impacting other elements of the adventure; i.e. you want authors to make it clear that these empty room sections can be populated with more challenge if the party isn't fighting enough, or more treasure if they haven't found enough, or more connectivity if the DM plans to branch into another area, but that it has to be done in a "changes to this area will not impact the rest of the adventure" kind of way instead of a "go ahead and think of something to add here" kind of way.

My 2 cents, anyway.