Amber and the "less is more" descriptive method

[RPGPundit]

Zelazny was a master of this: Castle Amber, the pattern itself, so many other things, where he gave only the absolute minimum of description possible, so that you had to use your own imagination to determine what these things looked like to you.

I've always been an advocate of "less is more" in describing during RPG play too; I think telling people just a couple of details and letting them fill in the rest.

So is it a good idea to actually try to hard to fill these things in for the RPG?

I think that as far as the book itself is concerned, I definitely do NOT want to see a picture of the Pattern or a blueprint of "castle amber". That would suck.

At the level of a campaign, its up to the individual of course.

RPGPundit

[finarvyn]

So is it a good idea to actually try to hard to fill these things in for the RPG?

I think that as far as the book itself is concerned, I definitely do NOT want to see a picture of the Pattern or a blueprint of "castle amber". That would suck.

Perhaps not in the core rulebook.

As part of an extra sourcebook, I'd like to see it! (Actually, I'd like to see something along the "three options" model. Here are three pictures that could be the pattern. Here are three possible Castle Amber blueprints. Etc.) While I always want the option to make any details my own, I also like having examples I can default to when I'm in a hurry.

[Otha]

I think it depends on the kind of players you have.

Some players are more interested in action, heavy action, kicking ass and taking names.  Descriptions can get in the way for them, unless you're talking about some puzzle they can overcome.

Some players are more interested in developing a complicated story, in which case focusing some descriptive power on important plot elements can be a useful way to draw their attention to things you want them to investigate.

Some players are more interested in exploring the world and want a "what would it be like" experience, in which case you can hardly have too much description.

There are other types, too, but these are the first examples that come to mind.

[finarvyn]

I think it depends on the kind of players you have.

You're correct on this. I replied to part of the original post and didn't really respond to the bigger issue....

I tend to be minimalistic most of the time when I GM. I give vague and general information and allow for players to fill in as needed. When we hit something significant (and if at all possible) I read them a passage from Zelazny as my "flavor text".

For example, when one of my players walked the pattern I read to them the passage of Corwin doing so for the first time (before memory returned, that is). I wanted them to get the "feel" for the experinece before we played it out.

Another case was when they visited Rebma, and I did the same sort of thing. I guess I figure that Roger is a better writer than I am!

[Otha]

I like that.

[Arref]

Agreed. That is a nice way to keep Players focused.
I also agree with the less is more, provided the 'less' is vivid stuff. Zelazny conjures with his words and gets a lot from sparse prose.

Lesser lights might have to say more.

And elsewhere, I was just agreeing with someone that Attributes deserve perceptual feedback ranked per the Attribute ranks. IOW, you need to pump descript back at First Rank Players when conflict data is involved.