As a player (which I don't really enjoy as much as gming), the aspect I enjoy most about gaming is the manner in which the GM conveys the world to his players.

It's more than just describing things creatively - it's the ability to convey, the setting's mood/tone with the appropiate words. No two worlds are alike and as such no two descriptions of mundane everyday things in said worlds are alike.

As a GM, I strive to make the worlds I create alive and different for my players. RPGs for me has always been more alchemy than chemistry, so I sometimes fail in my efforts of conveying something specific I had in mind. Which is not to say, the game, was not fun, just that whatever goals I had in mind were not fullfilled.

So, as players or GMs, how do you rate, description, in the scheme of things? Does it matter if the GM is pretty bland in her descriptions? Is it important only that you get the relevent details, the window dressing you can do without. This also includes characterizations of NPCs.

Regards,
David R

In the last CoC game I played, the Keeper had prepared a lot of descriptions, to open each scene, as it were. The guy was something of a writer and he'd put a lot into them, and on paper they were very cool. Sadly it fell a bit flat because he was basically reading out blocks of text. I didn't feel engaged, and I think if he could have improvised a little, or at least appeared to improvise (which is probabaly the true art of it) I would have felt more in the moment.

The shared joy of being able to interact with the description as its unfolding does it for me.



Hey I originally typed "in the monet" by accident. Which could be an interesting Cthulu game in itself...

Reading descriptions from prepared notes...not good, not good at all. Eye contact, must have eye contact with your players.

Regards,
David R

We use a lot in our games, but not in the form of prepared paragrpahs.  Usually the GM (we rotate) has a one sentence note for stuff and the rest comes off the cuff.  When we play Conspiracy of Shadows we have the added benefit of the system letting players directly adding to that stuff, so as I describe something sometimes a player will drop something that makes it that much cooler.

Most of our stuff is about personal interaction and less scenery though, so the majority of the description is about the individual and that is helped by using audio and visual markers.

Quote from: keith senkowskiConspiracy of Shadows[/url] we have the added benefit of the system letting players directly adding to that stuff, so as I describe something sometimes a player will drop something that makes it that much cooler.

Very interesting. So, how many other GMs allow this kind of input from their players?

Me, I'm more Kubrick than Altman , so I pretty much control the way how scenes are described. But the above system does have the advantage (I think) of allowing the whole group to contibute to a predetermined atmosphere/tone. I mean, I assume all the players are on the same page with regards to atmosphere/tone...but the implications of this method goes way beyond just describing things, right?

Regards,
David R

I think it's vitally important to engage with and paint a picture for your players.

Quote from: David RVery interesting. So, how many other GMs allow this kind of input from their players?

Me, I'm more Kubrick than Altman , so I pretty much control the way how scenes are described. But the above system does have the advantage (I think) of allowing the whole group to contibute to a predetermined atmosphere/tone. I mean, I assume all the players are on the same page with regards to atmosphere/tone...but the implications of this method goes way beyond just describing things, right?

Regards,
David R

I am totally an Altman.  Improve is god.  I mean in out Burning Wheel game on Wednesday, the GM was doing this scene with one player and me and another player were doing our own scene (all the characters were standing by each other).  The conversations kinda overlapped in that classic Altman way... Full of the awesome...

Yeah the only way for it to work is for everyone to be on the same page, which is never a problem.  We always discuss what everyone wants out of the game and do an AAR to see what worked and what didn't.  It is like any group project, communication is the key...

And the method does go well beyond just describing things.  As a group we are at liberty to bring in new elements to the game off the cuff (such as the pawn broker I invented on the spot on Wed.).  That kinda freedom mixed with the constraints we discuss in the beginning really opens up the game, keeping everyone involved at all times.  You never have anyone not paying attention or building dice towers cause we can all contribute at any time, even if our character is absent.

Here's a related question.  When I run NPCs I tend to add attribution to their dialogue.  Kornak says hello; The bartender asks you want you want; The king says he needs someone to scratch his bunion.  

I've played under GMs who do all NPC dialogue "in character" as in, if he's roleplaying a prince, whatever the GM says it what the prince is saying.  I find that kind of unsettling sometimes and I've never felt comfortable doing it myself (although I occasionally mix a bit of in-character dialogue for longer conversations, so long as I started with "he says/she says"). I also find that IC dialogue tends to drag the conversation on, and can be particularly jarring when the GM either isn't a particularly good speaker and/or is roleplaying a member of the opposite sex---especially when the NPC is trying to be coy.    

So, which do you prefer?

And to the OP- I thought this was related enough not to be a threadjack (as in conveying the world) and perhaps too minor to warrant its own thread.  I apologize if I'm wrong.  

Pete

Quote from: pspahnSo, which do you prefer?

I prefer IC dialogue. I can convey a hell of a lot more with this method than with the other. Also it adds to the whole atmosphere of the game.

QuoteAnd to the OP- I thought this was related enough not to be a threadjack (as in conveying the world) and perhaps too minor to warrant its own thread.  I apologize if I'm wrong.  

No,this is a good point. Anything about description is wellcomed here

Regards,
David R