Quote from: nDervish;938694On the contrary.  While I'll agree with you that it (probably) doesn't have anything to do with controlling "the narrative" or "MAH STOREH", you do seem to be somewhat concerned with controlling how the players envision the scene, to ensure that they see it exactly as the GM sees it (or at least extremely close to the same way).  But I doubt that most of us here are concerned with maintaining that degree of control over what the players envision.  I know that I almost never do (and, on the rare occasions that I do specifically want my players to see things the same way as I do, I'll find an appropriate picture online and show them that rather than trying to describe it in exacting detail).

If I carelessly describe a serviceable, but run-down, building as a "shack" and my players take me at my word and envision a dilapidated shack, then so what?  If they behave in a way that doesn't make sense in my conception of the surroundings, then I'll ask them about it, find out that they understood things to be different than what I intended to present, correct the misunderstanding, and move on.  And if it doesn't lead them to behave inappropriately, then the different pictures of the surroundings don't matter.

I suppose, one again, the difference is in how the GM envisions his own role in the game too. I have made it clear I hold to the notion that the GM's primary role is that of narrator, the chief conduit to the world the characters are interacting with. Therefore I place a lot of importance on that performance. If I as GM have taken the time to create this make believe setting the players are going to adventure in, then I want to make sure I relate it in a way that allows them to see it as I do. Its not sufficient enough for me that they have a general idea or can strap on some conventional trope to my brief description in order to make it through the scene. I want them to experience the setting the way I intend. I realize that other GMs, other groups, don't place as much importance in this and rather prioritize the action, the choices, the tactics, the roleplaying or some other nuance and relegate the setting to just a backdrop to what is really important to them. That's fine but for my taste the SETTING IS THE GAME, the main reason to play is to explore and experience it, so description is obviously a major element for us.

Im not sure exactly how to explain this next point but Ill give it a shot. It came to mind while dusting off my book shelves and coming across some old paperback novels from the 80s. I have a series of books called the "Survivalist", but a guy named Jerry Ahern. There are many series like his and his writing style was, and is somewhat common in the genre of pulpy, heroic, combat fiction.

For Jerry it was never enough to say a guy got shot with a gun - rather something like "He squeezed the pacmyer grips and pulled the trigger on the nickel-plated .357 Colt Python, sighting down the front ramp at the center of the brigand's chest. The 200 grain, semi-hollow point round rocketed toward the target at over 1200 feet per second with deadly accuracy. There was an audible thump as the round's soft metal tip penetrated the thug just above his sternum, the impact mushrooming on impact and forming a savage cavitation wave and trail of destruction through the man's chest."

Now nobody is going to argue that most of that little blurb wasn't necessary information - but the intense detail served a purpose. It set a mood, it fostered emotion and for lack of a better term, it was 'cool' and those kinds of books were and are very popular. I can see how a GM may want to bring some of that into his game.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938703Im not sure exactly how to explain this next point but Ill give it a shot. It came to mind while dusting off my book shelves and coming across some old paperback novels from the 80s. I have a series of books called the "Survivalist", but a guy named Jerry Ahern. There are many series like his and his writing style was, and is somewhat common in the genre of pulpy, heroic, combat fiction.

For Jerry it was never enough to say a guy got shot with a gun - rather something like "He squeezed the pacmyer grips and pulled the trigger on the nickel-plated .357 Colt Python, sighting down the front ramp at the center of the brigand's chest. The 200 grain, semi-hollow point round rocketed toward the target at over 1200 feet per second with deadly accuracy. There was an audible thump as the round's soft metal tip penetrated the thug just above his sternum, the impact mushrooming on impact and forming a savage cavitation wave and trail of destruction through the man's chest."

Now nobody is going to argue that most of that little blurb wasn't necessary information - but the intense detail served a purpose. It set a mood, it fostered emotion and for lack of a better term, it was 'cool' and those kinds of books were and are very popular. I can see how a GM may want to bring some of that into his game.

I like to try. The level of detail is probably a little lengthy for at table narration (an online game it could be fine) and either case not for every bullet fired in a prolonged fire fight but for specific moments to set the mood, yeah, I like to do put in more detail. It seems like a "bullet time" kind of scene or a tracking shot that follows the path of the round. You have to pick the moments and considering pacing and mood (of the game and the tablez) but it can be great especially if the players get into it too.

OTOH, some will consider it florid overblown purple prose that takes the long way to say "You hit doing max damage and he goes down." on the other extreme or just prefer something more in the middle "Your shot hits and he falls, blood spreading across his chest" or similar. I don't think any of it is objectively better as a matter of preferences. Its going to vary from person to person, group to group.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938703Im not sure exactly how to explain this next point but Ill give it a shot. It came to mind while dusting off my book shelves and coming across some old paperback novels from the 80s. I have a series of books called the "Survivalist", but a guy named Jerry Ahern. There are many series like his and his writing style was, and is somewhat common in the genre of pulpy, heroic, combat fiction.

For Jerry it was never enough to say a guy got shot with a gun - rather something like "He squeezed the pacmyer grips and pulled the trigger on the nickel-plated .357 Colt Python, sighting down the front ramp at the center of the brigand's chest. The 200 grain, semi-hollow point round rocketed toward the target at over 1200 feet per second with deadly accuracy. There was an audible thump as the round's soft metal tip penetrated the thug just above his sternum, the impact mushrooming on impact and forming a savage cavitation wave and trail of destruction through the man's chest."

Now nobody is going to argue that most of that little blurb wasn't necessary information - but the intense detail served a purpose. It set a mood, it fostered emotion and for lack of a better term, it was 'cool' and those kinds of books were and are very popular. I can see how a GM may want to bring some of that into his game.

I understand the sentiment. But I can tell you, as writer and game master, that there is a difference between evocative specificity and tedious detail.

Part of writing is knowing what NOT to say: what you can cut to get down to the best part of what you're trying to convey. It requires having an awareness of your word-choice and structure's impact on the reader.

As a GM, it is an art of knowing what NOT to detail: where you're fine letting the player fill in the specifics of the world according to their contribution to the shared world of the game, versus your vision of it. This requires trust and rapport with your players.

As a compromise between (what I perceive to be) your style of running VS mine, I would say: let the player propose some details and dramatic consequences for their actions/interaction with the game world. Retain veto power, so if they describe something that is impossible (or just ruins the broth for you or whatever) you can just amend it with them until you find a workable compromise between their vision of the game world and yours.

Quote from: Nexus;938707I like to try. The level of detail is probably a little lengthy for at table narration (an online game it could be fine) and either case not for every bullet fired in a prolonged fire fight but for specific moments to set the mood, yeah, I like to do put in more detail. It seems like a "bullet time" kind of scene or a tracking shot that follows the path of the round. You have to pick the moments and considering pacing and mood (of the game and the tablez) but it can be great especially if the players get into it too.

OTOH, some will consider it florid overblown purple prose that takes the long way to say "You hit doing max damage and he goes down." on the other extreme or just prefer something more in the middle "Your shot hits and he falls, blood spreading across his chest" or similar. I don't think any of it is objectively better as a matter of preferences. Its going to vary from person to person, group to group.

I agree entirely. I just cant buy the notion some have expressed here that such descriptions are a waste of time, amateurish and have no place at the roleplaying table.

Quote from: Azraele;938710I understand the sentiment. But I can tell you, as writer and game master, that there is a difference between evocative specificity and tedious detail.

Part of writing is knowing what NOT to say: what you can cut to get down to the best part of what you're trying to convey. It requires having an awareness of your word-choice and structure's impact on the reader.

As a GM, it is an art of knowing what NOT to detail: where you're fine letting the player fill in the specifics of the world according to their contribution to the shared world of the game, versus your vision of it. This requires trust and rapport with your players.

As a compromise between (what I perceive to be) your style of running VS mine, I would say: let the player propose some details and dramatic consequences for their actions/interaction with the game world. Retain veto power, so if they describe something that is impossible (or just ruins the broth for you or whatever) you can just amend it with them until you find a workable compromise between their vision of the game world and yours.

I take no issue with that at all and encourage my players to do just that, although I will admit its rarely the case. You might note my other currently running thread on Player Roll Enterpretation that mentions a group of players I spotted on Youtube that do this very thing, very well.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938712I agree entirely. I just cant buy the notion some have expressed here that such descriptions are a waste of time, amateurish and have no place at the roleplaying table.

I read and got allot of gming advice that said the opposite but everyone's got an opinion and preferences. Depends on what works for you.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938703I have a series of books called the "Survivalist", but a guy named Jerry Ahern.

This explains a lot, for there is men's fiction, there is bad men's fiction, then there is Jerry Ahern.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938703For Jerry it was never enough to say a guy got shot with a gun - rather something like "He squeezed the pacmyer grips and pulled the trigger on the nickel-plated .357 Colt Python, sighting down the front ramp at the center of the brigand's chest. The 200 grain, semi-hollow point round rocketed toward the target at over 1200 feet per second with deadly accuracy. There was an audible thump as the round's soft metal tip penetrated the thug just above his sternum, the impact mushrooming on impact and forming a savage cavitation wave and trail of destruction through the man's chest."

After reading that, I want somebody to put a .40 S&W Black Talon through the mid-line of my supraorbital ridge.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938703. . . those kinds of books were and are very popular.

Ah, the ever popular argumentum ad populum.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938703I can see how a GM may want to bring some of that into his game.

Can you also understand how a referee or especially a player many NOT want "some of that" in her game?

Quote from: rgrove0172;938703Im not sure exactly how to explain this next point but Ill give it a shot. It came to mind while dusting off my book shelves and coming across some old paperback novels from the 80s. I have a series of books called the "Survivalist", but a guy named Jerry Ahern. There are many series like his and his writing style was, and is somewhat common in the genre of pulpy, heroic, combat fiction.

Ahern is a bad writer. Sure he has his fans, and so does Stephenie Meyer, they may be successful but the quality of their writing is shit. Ahern is like the retarded love-child of Richard Marcinko and Clive Cussler pretending to be Tom Clancy. All of them are bad writers (I'll cut Clancy a break). Ahern actually *apes* their style. But as I said - he has his market and he's getting paid.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938703For Jerry it was never enough to say a guy got shot with a gun - rather something like "He squeezed the pacmyer grips and pulled the trigger on the nickel-plated .357 Colt Python, sighting down the front ramp at the center of the brigand's chest. The 200 grain, semi-hollow point round rocketed toward the target at over 1200 feet per second with deadly accuracy. There was an audible thump as the round's soft metal tip penetrated the thug just above his sternum, the impact mushrooming on impact and forming a savage cavitation wave and trail of destruction through the man's chest."

Yeah this is combat-porn that usually caters to a very specific audience. It's overly worded. Filled with pointless (and inaccurate) detail best used for bad 80s action movies. Why not mention how a 30-foot rooster tail of bright arterial spray blinded the monkey in the palm-tree above him as he died?. But it illustrates a more important point I've been making in many of your posts I'll get to...

Quote from: rgrove0172;938703Now nobody is going to argue that most of that little blurb wasn't necessary information - but the intense detail served a purpose. It set a mood, it fostered emotion and for lack of a better term, it was 'cool' and those kinds of books were and are very popular. I can see how a GM may want to bring some of that into his game.

Double-negative's aside (more bad writing!). The detail is intense and served a purpose/set a mood/fostered emotion/was cool TO WHOM? The goalpost of this thread has moved - you keep ignoring the larger issue by homing in on these little points that when corralled together spell out my larger point -

That is: you're making it about you. You think these things serve a purpose/set a mood/foster emotion/is cool - to you. You've absorbed fiction narrative *as* a method of GMing - which is what I have called "basic", because you're concerned with the PC's dancing to your narrative that you, by your examples, railroad them into despite whatever they might actually want or expect. You're trying to evoke a narrative feeling from bad works of fiction that have *nothing* to do with the actual game, rather they have to do with you making you get what you want.

You seem to not understand that in a work of fiction - this is fine (to a point) because the writer writes a story with only himself as the audience while he's writing it. If you run your RPG's like that - it's pretty basic because ultimately you're only trying to satisfy the needs of ultimately one person: yourself. The PC's are just along for the ride, in varying degrees, using this method.

And even poorly-written fiction will find its fans. There are, in fact, people that watch porn and are concerned about the story. That doesn't mean it's good fiction. Same goes with GMing RPG's.

It's a balancing act, I'm not saying over-the-top shit in a game is bad. It totally is legitimate, but those things ideally should arise from gameplay not because you want to verbally jerk-off to your players. You're examples seem to center only around your need for control. Almost none of your examples concern how you set things up around your PC's FOR their PC's rather than you discussing how you DO things TO your PC's.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;938725This explains a lot, for there is men's fiction, there is bad men's fiction, then there is Jerry Ahern.


After reading that, I want somebody to put a .40 S&W Black Talon through the mid-line of my supraorbital ridge.


Ah, the ever popular argumentum ad populum.


Can you also understand how a referee or especially a player many NOT want "some of that" in her game?

Of course. I wouldnt argue one over the other only the appropriateness of both.

Quote from: tenbones;938731Ahern is a bad writer. Sure he has his fans, and so does Stephenie Meyer, they may be successful but the quality of their writing is shit. Ahern is like the retarded love-child of Richard Marcinko and Clive Cussler pretending to be Tom Clancy. All of them are bad writers (I'll cut Clancy a break). Ahern actually *apes* their style. But as I said - he has his market and he's getting paid.



Yeah this is combat-porn that usually caters to a very specific audience. It's overly worded. Filled with pointless (and inaccurate) detail best used for bad 80s action movies. Why not mention how a 30-foot rooster tail of bright arterial spray blinded the monkey in the palm-tree above him as he died?. But it illustrates a more important point I've been making in many of your posts I'll get to...



Double-negative's aside (more bad writing!). The detail is intense and served a purpose/set a mood/fostered emotion/was cool TO WHOM? The goalpost of this thread has moved - you keep ignoring the larger issue by homing in on these little points that when corralled together spell out my larger point -

That is: you're making it about you. You think these things serve a purpose/set a mood/foster emotion/is cool - to you. You've absorbed fiction narrative *as* a method of GMing - which is what I have called "basic", because you're concerned with the PC's dancing to your narrative that you, by your examples, railroad them into despite whatever they might actually want or expect. You're trying to evoke a narrative feeling from bad works of fiction that have *nothing* to do with the actual game, rather they have to do with you making you get what you want.

You seem to not understand that in a work of fiction - this is fine (to a point) because the writer writes a story with only himself as the audience while he's writing it. If you run your RPG's like that - it's pretty basic because ultimately you're only trying to satisfy the needs of ultimately one person: yourself. The PC's are just along for the ride, in varying degrees, using this method.

And even poorly-written fiction will find its fans. There are, in fact, people that watch porn and are concerned about the story. That doesn't mean it's good fiction. Same goes with GMing RPG's.

It's a balancing act, I'm not saying over-the-top shit in a game is bad. It totally is legitimate, but those things ideally should arise from gameplay not because you want to verbally jerk-off to your players. You're examples seem to center only around your need for control. Almost none of your examples concern how you set things up around your PC's FOR their PC's rather than you discussing how you DO things TO your PC's.

And your opinion, more than another's, about Ahern or gaming or whatever is so absolutely indisputable because???

Know your audience. Tenbones is right in that Ahern's poor fiction caters to a specific subset (so did "50 Shades of Grey").  Other than that:

Grove's statement about how he sees his role is key. He feels is the narrator, the gateway into the world he's created. Therefore, his descriptions are going to reflect how he sees it, right down to the 10-penny nail, if need be. In any case, it explains and justifies his approach, for better or worse (or both).:-)

I see myself as an someone who presents a scenario, that arbitrates the outcome, sometimes by fiat, other times with help from dice rolls. For me, scenarios are people-driven (or "entity-driven," as the case may be). So, while I don't drop a ton of frilled into setting, I DO put some oomph behind acting out characters voices and mannerisms. In cases where I have no set visage in mind, we short hand the description using familiar touchstones (which is how one of our NPCs ended up looking like Ivanka Trump [this is what happens when you let a player tell you what someone looks like]).:-)

Stating the obvious here, but, how you see your role as GM is likely going to determine how much effort you put in, and where. We act each according to his or her own gifts.

P.S. And, yeah, if that example was indicative of Mr. Ahern's work, then it really is just poor writing. There's a lot of showing off his favorite esoterica, instead of just writing what's going on.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938734And your opinion, more than another's, about Ahern or gaming or whatever is so absolutely indisputable because???

Who is making the claim that it's indisputable? Feel free. But to the degree that one can say "this is good fiction" vs. "this is bad fiction" implies that no standard can ever be used is a post-modernist bullshittery. It's bad fiction because it's bad grammar, it's bad narrative, it's bad perspective, it's bad character development, it's bad pacing, it's bad structure, it's bad ON PURPOSE. The Survivalist is not an attempt at being remotely realistic - ON PURPOSE . I'm not saying that Ahern or his fans are horrible people. They like what they like and pay their money for it and he delivered. Some people loved Megaforce.

Only no one is pretending it's trying to be realistic. As Black Vulmea pointed out about your lack of understanding when it comes to living in the wilds. You're operating out of your own limited perspective and calling out *everyone* else that might differ - as only "having an opinion".

The answer is simple - an opinion is only as valuable as the individuals capacity to understand it. Yes, some opinions are, indeed, more valuable than others. Hence you ignored the larger point I've been making in almost every single thread you've posted the same questions to over and over. You're making it about you, not your PC's.

Quote from: tenbones;938739Who is making the claim that it's indisputable? Feel free. But to the degree that one can say "this is good fiction" vs. "this is bad fiction" implies that no standard can ever be used is a post-modernist bullshittery. It's bad fiction because it's bad grammar, it's bad narrative, it's bad perspective, it's bad character development, it's bad pacing, it's bad structure, it's bad ON PURPOSE. The Survivalist is not an attempt at being remotely realistic - ON PURPOSE . I'm not saying that Ahern or his fans are horrible people. They like what they like and pay their money for it and he delivered. Some people loved Megaforce.

Only no one is pretending it's trying to be realistic. As Black Vulmea pointed out about your lack of understanding when it comes to living in the wilds. You're operating out of your own limited perspective and calling out *everyone* else that might differ - as only "having an opinion".

The answer is simple - an opinion is only as valuable as the individuals capacity to understand it. Yes, some opinions are, indeed, more valuable than others. Hence you ignored the larger point I've been making in almost every single thread you've posted the same questions to over and over. You're making it about you, not your PC's.

I respectfully disagree on so much of what you posted I'm not sure it's worth going into. I'll just bow out. Have a good one.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938703Im not sure exactly how to explain this next point but Ill give it a shot. It came to mind while dusting off my book shelves and coming across some old paperback novels from the 80s. I have a series of books called the "Survivalist", but a guy named Jerry Ahern. There are many series like his and his writing style was, and is somewhat common in the genre of pulpy, heroic, combat fiction.

For Jerry it was never enough to say a guy got shot with a gun - rather something like "He squeezed the pacmyer grips and pulled the trigger on the nickel-plated .357 Colt Python, sighting down the front ramp at the center of the brigand's chest. The 200 grain, semi-hollow point round rocketed toward the target at over 1200 feet per second with deadly accuracy. There was an audible thump as the round's soft metal tip penetrated the thug just above his sternum, the impact mushrooming on impact and forming a savage cavitation wave and trail of destruction through the man's chest."

Now nobody is going to argue that most of that little blurb wasn't necessary information - but the intense detail served a purpose. It set a mood, it fostered emotion and for lack of a better term, it was 'cool' and those kinds of books were and are very popular. I can see how a GM may want to bring some of that into his game.

Here's the thing with "Ahern Gming" - he's an author, not a GM and when I'm reading about Dr. Rourke or Mack Bolan, or whoever, I'm not roleplaying them.  You go into detail like that when my PC is in a gunfight, I may have other things on my mind, like the other three guys that are about to start shooting at me after I shot their gang boss.

That's the difference between playing like you are generating scenes in literature or movies, and playing like you are there, experiencing an event in that world.

You say the setting is the game, I agree, but my setting is a World, not a Book or Movie.