In terms of format, I think #3 is easier to use since it is broken into short, concise paragraphs. I don't think that the actual bullet points add much information. However, I want a room description to move from the general to the more specific, but in this case, #3 is simply #2 broken into bullet points. To be more useful, I'd rather it be structured something like this:
Unlit. There are six statues: five of identical bearded men, one of a hard-faced woman. The statues are dressed in archaic Thulian dress. A thick layer of undisturbed dust covers everything.
Religious knowledge (trivial): Recognize the male statues as Turms Termax and the female as Sarana, lover of Turms, who disappeared shortly before his apotheosis.
Close inspection (hard): The heads of the male statues are not the original heads and can be removed.
Force doors (easy): Remove the heads without damaging them.
My choice is#2. I prefer to read #1, but if I was using it I like the bolded words to help me find things. #3 maybe easier to find things, but it reads like a technical manual and has no flavor. So #2 is a happy medium between being well written and well organized.
I like 2. 1 is thematic but too long-winded and thus harder to grasp. 3 is easy to parse, but I find when the information is broken up this way, I have to work harder to set the scene for my players, and I occasionally overlook a crucial detail/bullet point in play.
2's presentation is concise and holistic - a happy middle ground for me.
I prefer three, mostly because it is the only entry that has some room description also (i.e. the room is dusty, etc.). I would prefer if the relevant skills to be checked were also bolded.
My preference goes to the first option. It will be for sure the less preferred one by any GM however there's a good reason for my choice: the GM has to build up in his imagination what he has to transfer to the players. This won't happen with the bullet pointed description. I have just left a comment in that sense to the last post of @Nate Whittington
I liked reading number one, but number three with bullets and holding would be much easier to use at the table.
Number two has the readability of one with slightly better formatting (I can scan for brackets), but three makes it easy for me to find what I need in a moment.
My problem with all three of them is they break up the flow by inserting rules in between the two parts of room description. The one I want has all the descriptions then the rules.
All three are unuseable in current form, so I would have to rewrite them to be used in game. #1 is the least painful to understand and so I would start with that one. But I really like the additional details in #3.
My version would have all the player-facing information first in language like #1, and then the action information afterwards. Breaking up the player facing information about the two groups of plinths by inserting the rules related to them is bad for me. I might say it to the players by mistake or stop and never tell them about Sarana's plinth.
The version I would have in my notes:
---------------------
In an unlit room there are six plinths upon which rest statues, the room and the statues are covered in dust. Five of the statues have matching heads and different bodies depicting male figures wearing archaic Thulian dress. The head is of a haughty, bearded man with piercing eyes. The sixth statue depicts an attractive but hard-faced woman.
Characters with religious knowledge recognize the figures as gods. Their heads are those of Turms Termax and his lover Sarana. Legends say Sarana disappeared shortly before his apotheosis. The heads of Turms are not original and a successful force doors check can remove them.
3. Clean. Key information clear to see. My immediate reaction was to look at the map and not see a room with 5 statues forcing me to dig around into the text (especially in 1) to figure it out. There's nothing atmospheric in the other descriptions to need the additional text. Generally my players and I can add any description we need to the cold facts; so prefer actionable detail only in the description.
I don't think it's a great test. The results are skewed by the serial-position effect, and reading #1 and #2 first improves your comprehension going into #3. Probably a few of these placed in different orders would give you more reliable results.
Trying to account for that, my preference is for #2 or #3 depending on what you are doing with the statues. If they are just set dressing/exposition, I prefer the narrative approach in #2 because it helps me relate the elements to each other. If they are going to be more interactive than "can knock their heads off," then I prefer #3 because it helps me find and refer to a particular element quickly.
I always liked using a First Glance, which is no more than a sentence, that describes what you immediately see in the room (which will naturally include any inhabitants), then follow that up with a general Description of the room and it's contents, as people pause to take in what they see. Anything of note in the room which needs a Closer Look should then have it's own little labelled section; it is assumed that anything here is having the characters specifically examining (and paying attention to the thing in question). This may include any specifics, such as the heads don't seem to be original. or something which might require specific knowledge to identify.
In this case, I would use Presentation #1 as the third section, specifically labelled "THE STATUES:" [Although the second section would probably mention the height and orientation of the statues and the fact that they seem to be in archaic formal robes. Possibly what their poses are ] There is no need to separate out the items in this section as both the players and gamemasters will be concentrating on the statues at this point in the game.
Essentially paralleling the HIgh Alert, Medium Aler, and Low Alert status of the party.
In terms of format, I think #3 is easier to use since it is broken into short, concise paragraphs. I don't think that the actual bullet points add much information. However, I want a room description to move from the general to the more specific, but in this case, #3 is simply #2 broken into bullet points. To be more useful, I'd rather it be structured something like this:
Unlit. There are six statues: five of identical bearded men, one of a hard-faced woman. The statues are dressed in archaic Thulian dress. A thick layer of undisturbed dust covers everything.
Religious knowledge (trivial): Recognize the male statues as Turms Termax and the female as Sarana, lover of Turms, who disappeared shortly before his apotheosis.
Close inspection (hard): The heads of the male statues are not the original heads and can be removed.
Force doors (easy): Remove the heads without damaging them.
3.
I prefer getting the information in a way that's easy to parse. The extra space isn't wasted... it's a helpful guide.
It's the only one that makes clear from the beginning how many statues are in the room.
My choice is#2. I prefer to read #1, but if I was using it I like the bolded words to help me find things. #3 maybe easier to find things, but it reads like a technical manual and has no flavor. So #2 is a happy medium between being well written and well organized.
I like 2. 1 is thematic but too long-winded and thus harder to grasp. 3 is easy to parse, but I find when the information is broken up this way, I have to work harder to set the scene for my players, and I occasionally overlook a crucial detail/bullet point in play.
2's presentation is concise and holistic - a happy middle ground for me.
I prefer three, mostly because it is the only entry that has some room description also (i.e. the room is dusty, etc.). I would prefer if the relevant skills to be checked were also bolded.
My preference goes to the first option. It will be for sure the less preferred one by any GM however there's a good reason for my choice: the GM has to build up in his imagination what he has to transfer to the players. This won't happen with the bullet pointed description. I have just left a comment in that sense to the last post of @Nate Whittington
May the fun be always at your table!
I liked reading number one, but number three with bullets and holding would be much easier to use at the table.
Number two has the readability of one with slightly better formatting (I can scan for brackets), but three makes it easy for me to find what I need in a moment.
I concur with most that #3 is the clearest and easiest to use. Nice dungeon BTW!
My problem with all three of them is they break up the flow by inserting rules in between the two parts of room description. The one I want has all the descriptions then the rules.
All three are unuseable in current form, so I would have to rewrite them to be used in game. #1 is the least painful to understand and so I would start with that one. But I really like the additional details in #3.
My version would have all the player-facing information first in language like #1, and then the action information afterwards. Breaking up the player facing information about the two groups of plinths by inserting the rules related to them is bad for me. I might say it to the players by mistake or stop and never tell them about Sarana's plinth.
The version I would have in my notes:
---------------------
In an unlit room there are six plinths upon which rest statues, the room and the statues are covered in dust. Five of the statues have matching heads and different bodies depicting male figures wearing archaic Thulian dress. The head is of a haughty, bearded man with piercing eyes. The sixth statue depicts an attractive but hard-faced woman.
Characters with religious knowledge recognize the figures as gods. Their heads are those of Turms Termax and his lover Sarana. Legends say Sarana disappeared shortly before his apotheosis. The heads of Turms are not original and a successful force doors check can remove them.
--------------------------
#2 reads nicely and has highlights for quick finds when scanning the page. Not too much info that will bog me down during the session.
I like #2 with the bolding. Has a better flow for me.
3. Clean. Key information clear to see. My immediate reaction was to look at the map and not see a room with 5 statues forcing me to dig around into the text (especially in 1) to figure it out. There's nothing atmospheric in the other descriptions to need the additional text. Generally my players and I can add any description we need to the cold facts; so prefer actionable detail only in the description.
I don't think it's a great test. The results are skewed by the serial-position effect, and reading #1 and #2 first improves your comprehension going into #3. Probably a few of these placed in different orders would give you more reliable results.
Trying to account for that, my preference is for #2 or #3 depending on what you are doing with the statues. If they are just set dressing/exposition, I prefer the narrative approach in #2 because it helps me relate the elements to each other. If they are going to be more interactive than "can knock their heads off," then I prefer #3 because it helps me find and refer to a particular element quickly.
The first. Simple, doesn't coerce or pick favorites. Let's the referee decide what to emphasize, if amything.
I always liked using a First Glance, which is no more than a sentence, that describes what you immediately see in the room (which will naturally include any inhabitants), then follow that up with a general Description of the room and it's contents, as people pause to take in what they see. Anything of note in the room which needs a Closer Look should then have it's own little labelled section; it is assumed that anything here is having the characters specifically examining (and paying attention to the thing in question). This may include any specifics, such as the heads don't seem to be original. or something which might require specific knowledge to identify.
In this case, I would use Presentation #1 as the third section, specifically labelled "THE STATUES:" [Although the second section would probably mention the height and orientation of the statues and the fact that they seem to be in archaic formal robes. Possibly what their poses are ] There is no need to separate out the items in this section as both the players and gamemasters will be concentrating on the statues at this point in the game.
Essentially paralleling the HIgh Alert, Medium Aler, and Low Alert status of the party.