TheRPGSite

Spun off from the other thread.

So some GMs are really eloquent with description or just at all. While others are very to the point. Or even rather minimalist. And some REALLY despise the oration style and others detest the spartan style.

Personally I tend to do some initial description that can get a bit verbose, and after that keep it fairly short unless something has changed. For example I'll go into detail about the style of the dungeon the players just entered. What the walls ceiling and floor are like, composition, decoration and so on. And thereafter keep it down to the bare basic "You enter another room the same style as the last three." and then embellish as needed. That way the players can pick out whats changed. Same with NPCs. Guards and other uniformed types especially. Get all the heavy details down at the start and then generalize thereafter and not any variations. "You see two more guards in the castles livery. The one at the front though has a large handlebar mustache and is wearing short blue cape." etc.

I used to be excessively brief with descriptions. Becoming a DM was part of my getting used to speaking more. Speech therapy only goes so far. And for some unknown reason people seem to enjoy my descriptions and demand more. So over time I get more descriptive and detailed. Put more effort into NPCs too. Eventually reaching what I feel is a good balance.

I have though had a few players who seem to have a near pathological hatred of any description more than "30ft long corridor." and "40 by 40ft room." And its not because they wanted details only if they ask for details. They didnt want details at all. Which led to one bemusing moment where one of these types cut in while I was describing a room.
Me the GM: You open the door and see a 30 by 50 room. Same stonework. In the east corner is a-"
Player cutting me off "I step into the room."
Me the GM: "Are you sure? I was just about to-"
Player cutting me off "Yes. I step into the room."
Me the GM: "You step into the room and promptly fall into the 40ft deep open pit thats right in front of the door. You are falling too fast to really note if the stonework is the same as before. But probably is."
Player alternating between red and pale: "What? But I-"
Me the GM cutting him off and rolling dice. Lots of. And they aint d6s. "You take 51 points of falling damage as you hit the hard cold stone floor at the bottom and are killed instantly."
Player sputtering since they had only 30hp.: "But you rolled 10d8? It should be-"
Me the GM cutting him off: "That was a typo. And situational. Please read the PHB entry on falling again while you roll up a new character."

(Thank you Gary and the AD&D PHB.)

I then explained, again, why waiting for the DM to finish is ya know kinda important sometimes. And why cutting off my allready rather short descriptions was being darn rude. Things went better after that. Ive had to play with as a player more of these than had to deal with as a GM.

As a player I like good detail of what my character is seeing and experiencing. Moreso since I was first session ever the group mapper. But try not to go overboard or go into flowing detail for every ten foot of hall we trudge down. Too much detail and the important parts can get lost in t he sensory overload. Unless that is intentional. One really beautiful moment where it worked was a DM doing a reeeeeeely looooooong descriiiiiption of our first entry into a convention hall. Tons of detail. And more detail. And hidden in there was the villain. Hiding in plain sight. Theyd chosen this spot for exactly that reason. Otherwise it can just turn into a morass of words.

So as a GM and/or a player what do you like? More detail or less detail? Why?
Or from another angle. What level of oration do you like? Not just details. Conversations, interactions, etc.

Didn't Grove try this one?  And went down in flames as everyone dogpiled onto him?  What makes it flame proof this time?

Cringing in the corner, mute.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;939369Didn't Grove try this one?  And went down in flames as everyone dogpiled onto him?  What makes it flame proof this time?

Because theres more to it than just knee-jerk reactions to real or imagined "my way is better than your way." This is "Heres what I like and how I got there. What do you like?"

Really. What do you like as a player. Or if you GM any. What do your players like to hear from you? Inarticulate grunting? A few sentences at best? A paragraph? War and Peace?

For my players, it's relative to the context, but generally, in order of importance...
1. Tactical - Immediately useful information you need Now.
2. Informational - Good to know, may not be immediately useful.
3. Atmospheric - May be immediately useful, useful later, or just to help immersion.

Basically I determine what the minimum they need to know is, then shoot slightly higher, so you don't have the "GM mentioned the flowerpot, we have to spend time on it problem."

Descriptions of NPCs are a little more detailed, city descriptions have more extraneous information in general since there seems to be more going on.

Quote from: Omega;939375Because theres more to it than just knee-jerk reactions to real or imagined "my way is better than your way." This is "Heres what I like and how I got there. What do you like?"

Really. What do you like as a player. Or if you GM any. What do your players like to hear from you? Inarticulate grunting? A few sentences at best? A paragraph? War and Peace?

I try to relay the necessary amount of information as possible.  However, that said, when I run investigative adventures, which I've done with my Super's game (it's a group of vigilantes), I give 'too much' and bury clues into said exposition.

But even then, I try to be concise, and clear, because that's how you relay information without any sort of confusion.  And even then, it happens.

Thing is, there's no set amount, sometimes it takes a page of exposition, other times, a sentence or just a word.  Usually, somewhere in between.

I tend to be direct in my descriptions, with a natural bent towards being overly minimalist.  So, to counter that, I make a point of trying to include some random, irrelevant crap in most locations and work that into the description to keep it from being an unbroken string of " with .  What do you do?"

Quote from: Christopher Brady;939389Thing is, there's no set amount, sometimes it takes a page of exposition, other times, a sentence or just a word.  Usually, somewhere in between.

Thats how it often is for me too. Use whats needed when needed. And yeah, investigative games tend to be data intensive.

Where I need to, I am flowery, where I don't I am terse.

"You enter an empty cave, there is a stream flowing through it and no other ways out" is enough for me, "You enter an empty cave, grey and green stalagmites and stalactites grow as if alive, clinging to the floor and roof. A fast stream flows through it, east to west, rushing as if hurrying to go somewhere. The rock is green-brown and you cannot see any ways out"  is more flowery, but might cause the PCs to spin around as they search the stalagmites and stalactites, test the water and look for hidden ways out.

Quote from: Omega;939367So as a GM and/or a player what do you like? More detail or less detail? Why?
Or from another angle. What level of oration do you like? Not just details. Conversations, interactions, etc.

I prefer narration that does not slow down time, or stop time, when describing something. There's always action that has to keep moving along. Everything players describe helps fill in the gaps of a scene as well, as long as it's done in real-time.

Quote from: Omega;939367. . . I'll go into detail about the style of the dungeon the players just entered. What the walls ceiling and floor are like, composition, decoration and so on. And thereafter keep it down to the bare basic "You enter another room the same style as the last three." and then embellish as needed. That way the players can pick out whats changed. Same with NPCs. Guards and other uniformed types especially. Get all the heavy details down at the start and then generalize thereafter and not[e] any variations. "You see two more guards in the castles livery. The one at the front though has a large handlebar mustache and is wearing short blue cape." etc.

This describes the referees in about 90% of the campaigns in which I've played over the years.

Quote from: Omega;939367What level of oration do you like?

No flowers, by request.

Look, this isn't bloody rocket surgery. Give a baseline description, then describe things which deviate from the baseline. Trust the players' imaginations enough that 'a warm spring day' or 'a cheap saloon' doesn't require a gawdamn wall-of-[box]-text. Be prepared should the players inquire more deeply about something or someone.

And for the love of Baby Jesus, remember you're sitting around a table playing a game with friends, not writing a fucking novel in real-time.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;939369What makes it flame proof this time?

Maybe not trying to go meta in the second post of the thread would help.

I prefer to have all my description delivered to me via a scrolling marquee.:-)

(this subject AGAIN?)

Actual answer: only what's necessary for the scene, please. I've been around. I don't need flowers.

Brevity is pretty much the most important thing when you're communicating with people (well, most people, generally, I mean you don't want to generalize too much but if you don't generalize at all it's pretty hard to make a decision, or "discover" or "understand" a situation, concept, or dynamic) because (assuming causality exists, but that's a completely different discussion and something I should avoid going into at length, but if someone wants to discuss it sometime I'd love to hear what they have to say; it would be interesting) your players need (against a prejudiced word, but work with me here) to know what to actually/fundamentally/basically focus on, or if you don't feel that "focus" is the right word, then "direct your attention towards" - or whatever... because at the end of the day (or gaming session, or, whatever) there's a point where less is more - how mystical! - and your actually tossing thoughts into people's brains and they're got to process all that stuff and make sense of it and try to understand, visualize, and internalize it, and if they stumble... well, you're giving them more stuff to stumble on.

Dig?

Perhaps this discussion has already been had, but I also believe it hasn't been had enough.

Quote from: Omega;939367So as a GM and/or a player what do you like? More detail or less detail? Why?

Useful details rather than meaningless ones.

More or less is a nonsensical metric, as is crunchy and light, but that's an argument for another day. Like all mediums, tabletop RPGs are defined by their limits, and one of those is how much information can be conveyed through speech at one time. This bandwidth is limited, so you should avoid redundant or inapplicable details, which you can't do without first understanding a player's existing assumptions and expectations. Finally, detail = attention, and giving something more detail will draw more attention to it.

So what are some useful techniques based on those conclusions? Start with what doesn't match player assumptions and expectations.

Quote from: Omega;939367Or from another angle. What level of oration do you like? Not just details. Conversations, interactions, etc.

Dialog (verbal or otherwise) is fundamental to my roleplaying experience, yet often treated as an unnecessary detail, sometimes aggressively so.

Quote from: Omega;939367I have though had a few players who seem to have a near pathological hatred of any description more than "30ft long corridor." and "40 by 40ft room." And its not because they wanted details only if they ask for details. They didnt want details at all. Which led to one bemusing moment where one of these types cut in while I was describing a room.
Me the GM: You open the door and see a 30 by 50 room. Same stonework. In the east corner is a-"
Player cutting me off "I step into the room."
Me the GM: "Are you sure? I was just about to-"
Player cutting me off "Yes. I step into the room."
Me the GM: "You step into the room and promptly fall into the 40ft deep open pit thats right in front of the door. You are falling too fast to really note if the stonework is the same as before. But probably is."
Player alternating between red and pale: "What? But I-"
Me the GM cutting him off and rolling dice. Lots of. And they aint d6s. "You take 51 points of falling damage as you hit the hard cold stone floor at the bottom and are killed instantly."
Player sputtering since they had only 30hp.: "But you rolled 10d8? It should be-"
Me the GM cutting him off: "That was a typo. And situational. Please read the PHB entry on falling again while you roll up a new character."

(Thank you Gary and the AD&D PHB.)

I then explained, again, why waiting for the DM to finish is ya know kinda important sometimes. And why cutting off my allready rather short descriptions was being darn rude. Things went better after that.

So you punished a player for skipping the quicktime cut-scenes.

You do realize that as the GM he can't actually stop you from finishing your description. Right?

Quote from: soltakss;939438Where I need to, I am flowery, where I don't I am terse.

"You enter an empty cave, there is a stream flowing through it and no other ways out" is enough for me, "You enter an empty cave, grey and green stalagmites and stalactites grow as if alive, clinging to the floor and roof. A fast stream flows through it, east to west, rushing as if hurrying to go somewhere. The rock is green-brown and you cannot see any ways out"  is more flowery, but might cause the PCs to spin around as they search the stalagmites and stalactites, test the water and look for hidden ways out.

And this is a perfect example of guiding player attention and behavior through detail.

The GM has a lot of power to determine player actions through description like this. So much so that I'm really surprised at how unevaluated it is.

#DescriptionMatters

Quote from: Black Vulmea;939446Look, this isn't bloody rocket surgery. Give a baseline description, then describe things which deviate from the baseline. Trust the players' imaginations enough that 'a warm spring day' or 'a cheap saloon' doesn't require a gawdamn wall-of-[box]-text. Be prepared should the players inquire more deeply about something or someone.

Exactly this, nothing more or less.

And FFS, if there's something obvious that you want them to notice, don't waste everyone's time waiting for them to make "perception rolls." Just tell them about the damned thing and get on with it.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;939446Look, this isn't bloody rocket surgery. Give a baseline description, then describe things which deviate from the baseline. Trust the players' imaginations enough that 'a warm spring day' or 'a cheap saloon' doesn't require a gawdamn wall-of-[box]-text. Be prepared should the players inquire more deeply about something or someone.

Yeah, this is the minumum, and GMs have to learn being minimalist. If the situation warrants more detail, give more detail. Just remember that the right detail can communicate more than one thing.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;939474So you punished a player for skipping the quicktime cut-scenes.

You do realize that as the GM he can't actually stop you from finishing your description. Right?

If a player keeps interrupting the description of the environment to state an action, honestly, I'd do the same. If he keeps interrupting you, he obviously doesn't care what the environment is:).

And yes, descriptions can easily guide the players' attention, but I don't see the point in asking for Wisdom rolls just to see whether you realize which details are extraneous;).

I give a lot of details up front but if it would get repetitive I stop, same with combat descriptions.

Quote from: cranebump;939448I prefer to have all my description delivered to me via a scrolling marquee.:-)

(this subject AGAIN?)

Actual answer: only what's necessary for the scene, please. I've been around. I don't need flowers.

1: oooh! I had that Goodyear Blimp model that you could add your own custom scrolling marquees too!

2: But better! (hopefully)

3: True. In D&D every flower is out to either eat you or turn you into a shambling, but at least decorative, automota.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;939474So you punished a player for skipping the quicktime cut-scenes.

You do realize that as the GM he can't actually stop you from finishing your description. Right?

1: No. I allowed the player, and their character to do exactly what they wanted and face the consequences. This guy wasnt even letting me finish describing the contends of a room. Contents that might be relevant. Like oh I dont know? That hole in the floor? His character literally barged into the room with his eyes closed. And the inevitable happened. Which I pointed out afterwards.

2: He could though cut in on the description and take action. And did. And I asked him if he was sure he wanted to do that. GMing for him was me doing alot of "Are you sure?" Followed by him leaping into whatever. Sometimes Id finish up the description afterwards. The whole party tended to go through dungeons and encounters at a breakneck (sometimes literally) pace. They missed ALOT because they never payed attention to anything. This went on about 3 sessions before the above incident and me explaining, again, all they were missing. After that they slowed down some and actually started asking for more details.

Quote from: AsenRG;939522If a player keeps interrupting the description of the environment to state an action, honestly, I'd do the same. If he keeps interrupting you, he obviously doesn't care what the environment is:).

More importantly, it sounds like he doesn't respect you, and I'm always wary of addressing that issue through in-game means.

Quote from: Omega;939538This guy wasnt even letting me finish describing the contends of a room. Contents that might be relevant.

But why would he do that, and why couldn't you just tell him to shut up and let you finish?

Quote from: Omega;939538He could though cut in on the description and take action. And did. And I asked him if he was sure he wanted to do that. GMing for him was me doing alot of "Are you sure?" Followed by him leaping into whatever. Sometimes Id finish up the description afterwards. The whole party tended to go through dungeons and encounters at a breakneck (sometimes literally) pace. They missed ALOT because they never payed attention to anything. This went on about 3 sessions before the above incident and me explaining, again, all they were missing. After that they slowed down some and actually started asking for more details.

Well I can't say it didn't work. Carry on :)

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;939624But why would he do that, and why couldn't you just tell him to shut up and let you finish?

Well I can't say it didn't work. Carry on :)

1: Impatience? Thrill seeker? Something else? I never got a handle on the why of it. As for why not cut off his cut off? Because I dont like walking over the players declared actions. They want to leap in eyes closed every time? Ok. And in part because I was trying to get a handle on the players. They were enjoying themselves alot. Two Fighters, a Paladin and a Ranger. (Said he was a ranger but played like a lightly armoured fighter with a forestry theme.) And for all their recklessness they worked well as a team. And their characters were absurdly lucky at avoiding traps.

2: Once they started thinking outside the box as it were they became a really formidible, if still reckless, force. Once they realized they could interact with the scenery they started wanting those descriptions. Still wanted it brief. But they wanted more and started doing stuff with the scenery.

All I can think of in retrospect is that it never occurred to them that they could interact with the sceenery and so anything past "40 by 40 room" was flowery embellishments?

For me personally, I mostly prefer brevity. I generally prefer action and interaction over listening to the GM (even if I am the GM). So when I do GM, I typically look for ways to cut short descriptions. I think it is an impossibility to describe everything that the character sees and hears - so I'll typically just lead with the key point, like "There's a vaulted cavern with a hydra." or "There's a huge pit in front of you." Then with that in mind, I'll answer questions they have, or we might interrupt each other with important points. So if a player says "I shut the door and run." and I might interject "Actually, the hydra is chained up to the wall - are you still running?"

If there's nothing of major consequence in a room or in several rooms, then I might just skip describing it entirely, and instead say "You search through the four rooms to the west, and only find cobwebs and a giant empty pit." Sometimes too much blow-by-blow just isn't that interesting.

Quote from: Ashakyre;939469Brevity is pretty much the most important thing when you're communicating with people...

That actually is incorrect.  Unless you're mistaking clarity and conciseness for shortness.  What is most important is imparting as much as being able to give the correct information, sometimes it takes more than a single word.

Just no boxed text, please.

Quote from: Omega;939630-cut-

2: Once they started thinking outside the box as it were they became a really formidible, if still reckless, force. Once they realized they could interact with the scenery they started wanting those descriptions. Still wanted it brief. But they wanted more and started doing stuff with the scenery.

All I can think of in retrospect is that it never occurred to them that they could interact with the sceenery and so anything past "40 by 40 room" was flowery embellishments?

This is exactly the problem I seem to be having with my current campaign and I just don't get. My players are very experienced and have been playing for decades, but they are making real bonehead decisions and not interacting. Weird. :confused:

Shemek

Quote from: Omega;939367Spun off from the other thread.

So some GMs are really eloquent with description or just at all. While others are very to the point. Or even rather minimalist. And some REALLY despise the oration style and others detest the spartan style.

Personally I tend to do some initial description that can get a bit verbose, and after that keep it fairly short unless something has changed. For example I'll go into detail about the style of the dungeon the players just entered. What the walls ceiling and floor are like, composition, decoration and so on. And thereafter keep it down to the bare basic "You enter another room the same style as the last three." and then embellish as needed. That way the players can pick out whats changed. Same with NPCs. Guards and other uniformed types especially. Get all the heavy details down at the start and then generalize thereafter and not any variations. "You see two more guards in the castles livery. The one at the front though has a large handlebar mustache and is wearing short blue cape." etc.

I used to be excessively brief with descriptions. Becoming a DM was part of my getting used to speaking more. Speech therapy only goes so far. And for some unknown reason people seem to enjoy my descriptions and demand more. So over time I get more descriptive and detailed. Put more effort into NPCs too. Eventually reaching what I feel is a good balance.

I have though had a few players who seem to have a near pathological hatred of any description more than "30ft long corridor." and "40 by 40ft room." And its not because they wanted details only if they ask for details. They didnt want details at all. Which led to one bemusing moment where one of these types cut in while I was describing a room.
Me the GM: You open the door and see a 30 by 50 room. Same stonework. In the east corner is a-"
Player cutting me off "I step into the room."
Me the GM: "Are you sure? I was just about to-"
Player cutting me off "Yes. I step into the room."
Me the GM: "You step into the room and promptly fall into the 40ft deep open pit thats right in front of the door. You are falling too fast to really note if the stonework is the same as before. But probably is."
Player alternating between red and pale: "What? But I-"
Me the GM cutting him off and rolling dice. Lots of. And they aint d6s. "You take 51 points of falling damage as you hit the hard cold stone floor at the bottom and are killed instantly."
Player sputtering since they had only 30hp.: "But you rolled 10d8? It should be-"
Me the GM cutting him off: "That was a typo. And situational. Please read the PHB entry on falling again while you roll up a new character."

(Thank you Gary and the AD&D PHB.)

I then explained, again, why waiting for the DM to finish is ya know kinda important sometimes. And why cutting off my allready rather short descriptions was being darn rude. Things went better after that. Ive had to play with as a player more of these than had to deal with as a GM.

As a player I like good detail of what my character is seeing and experiencing. Moreso since I was first session ever the group mapper. But try not to go overboard or go into flowing detail for every ten foot of hall we trudge down. Too much detail and the important parts can get lost in t he sensory overload. Unless that is intentional. One really beautiful moment where it worked was a DM doing a reeeeeeely looooooong descriiiiiption of our first entry into a convention hall. Tons of detail. And more detail. And hidden in there was the villain. Hiding in plain sight. Theyd chosen this spot for exactly that reason. Otherwise it can just turn into a morass of words.

So as a GM and/or a player what do you like? More detail or less detail? Why?
Or from another angle. What level of oration do you like? Not just details. Conversations, interactions, etc.

I think I lean more towards the "flowery' by the standards here. I like details: sights, sounds, smells, tastes. Things that make me feel like my character is there. I don't care if the details are meaningful or meaningless. That's at least partly determined by what I or the PCs chose to pay attention too. For me, it helps with immersion and setting the mood. My players seem to appreciate it. At least no one has told me to shut up and get on with it and they keep asking me to gm and accepting when I ask them into games so I guess I'm doing something right or at least tolerable. :) In face to face gaming referring to common experiences can be a useful tool "This place is like the bar in Star Wars: a New Hope but less aliens" as an example though that does require a bit of stepping outside the character's headspace. Online you can find countless illustrations that can help.

When I first started my descriptive style was very terse, even spartan and I found I spent allot of time clarifying things or had some players that didn't feel satisfied with that. After that and reading articles on improving descriptions and using evocative descriptions I tried to adopt those techniques and ones that I enjoyed from other GMs until I arrived here at what I feel is fun and has worked for me.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;939389I try to relay the necessary amount of information as possible.  However, that said, when I run investigative adventures, which I've done with my Super's game (it's a group of vigilantes), I give 'too much' and bury clues into said exposition.

But even then, I try to be concise, and clear, because that's how you relay information without any sort of confusion.  And even then, it happens.

Thing is, there's no set amount, sometimes it takes a page of exposition, other times, a sentence or just a word.  Usually, somewhere in between.

True. Genre matters too. For a fairly straight forward adventure game, a simple description like "You bury the hatchet in his chest and he falls." is fine but in say, Slasher Flick, a bit more exposition is in order. :D

Came to the thread for the Anti-Brevity Oration, left with my hankering for rhetoric unslaked.

Macassar ebony balustrades, bitches, macassar ebony balustrades...

My preference is choosing evocative wording to be clear & concise, as a means to save time. I have gotten caught many a time having to play dictionary for my players because of that, but I am happy to oblige. In the long run it's active vocabulary learning for them, more jargon between us to speed things along, and fodder for their own games. That said, it is easy to blow someone out of the water on topics unfamiliar to them. (I lie helpless before gun bunny pr0n talk.)

As long as I am not going through each locale like barren arenas, having to guess what the GM is thinking (or worse, dice out my basic perception), I am fine with baselines + notables. Some people's baselines though are far more vivid than others. It's a knowing-your-audience thing, and I am definitely in the camp of pulling the audience's Overton Window toward a larger vocabulary when I can.

Quote from: Omega;939630Impatience? Thrill seeker? Something else? I never got a handle on the why of it.

Quote from: Omega;939630All I can think of in retrospect is that it never occurred to them that they could interact with the sceenery and so anything past "40 by 40 room" was flowery embellishments?

Quote from: Shemek hiTankolel;939718This is exactly the problem I seem to be having with my current campaign and I just don't get. My players are very experienced and have been playing for decades, but they are making real bonehead decisions and not interacting. Weird. :confused:

#Innnteresting

Quote from: rgrove0172;939373Cringing in the corner, mute.

Been pretty calm so far.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;939389I try to relay the necessary amount of information as possible.  However, that said, when I run investigative adventures, which I've done with my Super's game (it's a group of vigilantes), I give 'too much' and bury clues into said exposition.

But even then, I try to be concise, and clear, because that's how you relay information without any sort of confusion.  And even then, it happens.

Thing is, there's no set amount, sometimes it takes a page of exposition, other times, a sentence or just a word.  Usually, somewhere in between.

I generally do this but meter it based on the skills/attributes of the PC's in question. What one PC might see or notice with/without a die-roll is not necessarily the same as the other PC's. So tend to give the brief description to the lowest common denominator of the PC's there and tell those with better skills/rolls whatever extra details based on the situation as necessary.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;939624More importantly, it sounds like he doesn't respect you, and I'm always wary of addressing that issue through in-game means.

In a word, no:).
I don't need in-game means to address someone not respecting me, I can just show him the door. If I ever "cut to rolling damage", it would be because I couldn't be bothered to stop the game and interact with the player, instead of just allowing the character to suffer the effects of the boneheaded decision without any need for interrupting the game;).