The recent Not so Calm conversation on GM Improv got sidetracked with a lot of discussion on how much descriptive detail various GMs use when relating their games. (and how much players enjoy)

I posted a link to a youtube video where a D&D GM (A trained voice actor is appears after some research) took a heavy narrator approach, describing each scene and even the player's actions as if you were reading them from a book. (IM not saying his stuff was measurable to a well written novel, only that he provided similar detail and drama in his descriptions.) I personally enjoy that kind of GMing and attempt to emulate it in my own games, always have. Sure, there is lots to be left for the player's imagination but I strive to give them plenty to work with and make sure they are at least imagining something very similar to what I am.

Others here have claimed this isn't necessary at all as the best of descriptions can hold a candle to what a person is imagining and players don't need to be led, give them a general idea and they will provide the rest. All that 'flowery bullshit' just wastes time.

Those are two extremes and I can see the benefit of both, and realize that most gamers fall in between somewhere, but I thought it would be worth discussing where you stand and why.

So do you spend a paragraph describing the old ruins the players just encountered, complete with atmospheric adjectives, cool comparisons and detailed descriptions or do you tell them they are some spooky old ruins and let their brains conjure up what will?

Quote from: rgrove0172;936992So do you spend a paragraph describing the old ruins the players just encountered, complete with atmospheric adjectives, cool comparisons and detailed descriptions or do you tell them they are some spooky old ruins and let their brains conjure up what will?

This all depends if the description is of an important area that is used as a McGuffin, or if the group is just passing through an area that is like any other.  I like to give/have only the details that are important.  

I do love describing epic fails or successes in a game.  "So your Knight swung his War Hammer, and knocked the face off his opponent"

Quote from: rgrove0172;936992So do you spend a paragraph describing the old ruins the players just encountered, complete with atmospheric adjectives, cool comparisons and detailed descriptions or do you tell them they are some spooky old ruins and let their brains conjure up what will?

Closer to the former than the latter.

I'll provide a description that is detailed enough to get across what I feel is important. Whether that takes a few sentences, or a paragraph, or whatever. Players will ask questions to fill in any gaps in the description that I don't provide.

What I try not to do is load a description up with what I consider to be purple prose. I'm not a frustrated writer, and I don't want my Rpging experience to turn into a flowery storytelling narration.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936992So do you spend a paragraph describing the old ruins the players just encountered, complete with atmospheric adjectives, cool comparisons and detailed descriptions or do you tell them they are some spooky old ruins and let their brains conjure up what will?

I usually aim for succinct but evocative. I also don't feel like I need to do this for every detail, and use it where it will have the most weight. You do have to read the room though. Some players tune out completely if you give more than a sentence of description, some can't function without more (or simply want more). These days I tend to pick very carefully where I use the important descriptors and try to do it by finding the right word for the occasion, rather than the right words (and that doesn't have to be a ten dollar word, just the best word I can think of that conveys what I want)

"Brevity is the soul of wit."

There is also a difference between "setting the scene when you first encounter it" and "running off at the mouth continuously."

There is also a difference between "giving a bit of colorful description to an exceptional combat moment" and "blathering on like a third rate Conan ripoff on every die roll."

There is also a difference between "twit who loves the sound of his own voice and won't shut up" and "providing extra detail occasionally if somebody asks for it."

Quote from: rgrove0172;936992Those are two extremes and I can see the benefit of both, and realize that most gamers fall in between somewhere, but I thought it would be worth discussing where you stand and why.

Had a GM who would describe in great detail each attack of our combats in D&D 3.5 and it made them all twice as long to resolve without increasing the enjoyment of our game. He also had the bad habit of describing what my Bard PC was doing with a lisp and exaggerated feminine gestures because to the GM, all Bards were flamboyantly flaming queers regardless of what the Player had for a character concept. I dropped his game after three sessions and found a better one.

As far as imagination goes when it relates to descriptive narration, there is a difference between giving enough to stimulate the imagination of the players and painting a picture with words. If you need to paint a picture with words, then you should rely upon a piece of artwork or a drawing to give the players an idea of the image because it gets the point across faster and better.

Often, I and my players since we are all adults with real lives, do not have a lot of time to actually game so when we do it is a waste of that time to go in to long-winded descriptive prose about things (especially if it is not helping to generate fun during the game).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;937001"Brevity is the soul of wit."

There is also a difference between "setting the scene when you first encounter it" and "running off at the mouth continuously."

There is also a difference between "giving a bit of colorful description to an exceptional combat moment" and "blathering on like a third rate Conan ripoff on every die roll."

There is also a difference between "twit who loves the sound of his own voice and won't shut up" and "providing extra detail occasionally if somebody asks for it."

That's all very true, Ive seen each demonstrated from time to time, sometimes in my own approach (good and bad). Reading the players is paramount I think when judging where one begins to slip into another. I have noticed, for example, on a few occasions my players would listen intently to a lengthy description of the setting, actually throwing in questions for more info afterward but will begin to fidget and exchange glances when my combat explanations become too involved. I learned by practice to embellish the former and simplify the latter...in that group. I have another player that engaged in a solo campaign for a few months that got a kick out of watching his 'roll to hit' and 'roll for damage' turn into a several second bloody exchange of blows. You gotta know your audience obviously.

Quote from: jeff37923;937005Had a GM who would describe in great detail each attack of our combats in D&D 3.5 and it made them all twice as long to resolve without increasing the enjoyment of our game. He also had the bad habit of describing what my Bard PC was doing with a lisp and exaggerated feminine gestures because to the GM, all Bards were flamboyantly flaming queers regardless of what the Player had for a character concept. I dropped his game after three sessions and found a better one.

As far as imagination goes when it relates to descriptive narration, there is a difference between giving enough to stimulate the imagination of the players and painting a picture with words. If you need to paint a picture with words, then you should rely upon a piece of artwork or a drawing to give the players an idea of the image because it gets the point across faster and better.

Often, I and my players since we are all adults with real lives, do not have a lot of time to actually game so when we do it is a waste of that time to go in to long-winded descriptive prose about things (especially if it is not helping to generate fun during the game).

Yep, timing is a critical element - Ive had to change my style completely when trying to reach a particular junction in a storyline on the last gaming night before the group disbands for spring break or something.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937006That's all very true, Ive seen each demonstrated from time to time, sometimes in my own approach (good and bad). Reading the players is paramount I think when judging where one begins to slip into another. I have noticed, for example, on a few occasions my players would listen intently to a lengthy description of the setting, actually throwing in questions for more info afterward but will begin to fidget and exchange glances when my combat explanations become too involved. I learned by practice to embellish the former and simplify the latter...in that group. I have another player that engaged in a solo campaign for a few months that got a kick out of watching his 'roll to hit' and 'roll for damage' turn into a several second bloody exchange of blows. You gotta know your audience obviously.

Good point, and also good point that one to one gaming is different from a group.

And more than anything else, read your players.  And as a player don't be afraid to speak up one way or the other.  Once again, "talk to each other."

And Jeff's point about D&D 3.5 is a good one too... combat ALREADY takes for fucking ever and if somebody launches into flowery descriptions for every die roll I'm going to punch them in the face so hard they shit their own liver, just because I want the combat to be concluded before I die of old age.

You need to pick your moments. When I work with artists, the first thing is making sure that some areas with more details and some have less. The parts with more details with stand out more. If you try everything forward its a boring picture.

This is a good thread idea!!

Quote from: rgrove0172;936992I personally enjoy that kind of GMing and attempt to emulate it in my own games, always have.

That's because your players are either stuffed animals or kidnap victims.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936992Sure, there is lots to be left for the player's imagination but I strive to give them plenty to work with and make sure they are at least imagining something very similar to what I am.

Absolutely. That's key.

But the questionable word here is "plenty" and there is NO good answer here to "how much is plenty?" other than "enough"

How much description is needed depends on the individuals involved. Some players really love heavily detailed descriptions, some NEED those heavy details, and some players chaff at getting more details than they feel they need.

This is also a measure of immersion. Some players only want to dip a toe, others want to wade in, and some want to swim into the fantasy and drink it deeply.
 
...and yet again, this situation is resolved by doing the unthinkable, aka, talking to your players.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936992as the best of descriptions can hold a candle to what a person is imagining

This is true.

It's why great horror films encourage you to scare yourself. Because your nightmares in your head scare you more than what you see with your eyes.

But...the descriptions MUST offer strong suggestions - preferably descriptions for all the senses.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936992and players don't need to be led, give them a general idea and they will provide the rest.

Players don't need to be led.

Especially your players, since the teddy bears use your voice and the kidnap victims will behave for food. Please don't do that human centipede thing again.

However, players MUST be given a clear image of the scene. GMs must bring clarity using their words so that everyone at the table understands WTF the GM is presenting. Only through CLARITY can players make informed decisions for their characters and participate in the Theater of the Mind.  

Everyone definitely will imagine the scene somewhat differently, but CLARITY will allow everyone to have the key elements in mind and understand what is happening, what the layout looks like, who the key players are, and using your words, they will create 3D models in their head.

And once everyone is clear on the scene, immersion is easy.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936992So do you spend a paragraph describing the old ruins the players just encountered, complete with atmospheric adjectives, cool comparisons and detailed descriptions or do you tell them they are some spooky old ruins and let their brains conjure up what will?

The back of the CoC book had a list of Mythos words. It is an awesome list of words HPL himself used in his stories and incredibly recommended for CoC GMs. Sprinkling them about has really added an authentic element to my games. Note: I said SPRINKLE, not DROWN. Treat them like a fine spice.
 
I take great pains to achieve CLARITY through MINIMALISM.

I ask myself these questions:

What are the most important elements in this encounter?
What is unique about this situation?
What elements stand out most about the NPCs or decor?
What do they see?
What do they hear?
What do they smell?
What do they feel?
What emotion do I want the players to experience?
What words should I try that will invoke that emotion?

Then...I answer the questions, and chop down my answers to key imagery words.

I know players today have shitty attention spans. I have to grab them fast and intrigue them.

Here's a 10 x 10 empty room.

The wooden door is open. No lock, just a rope.
Based on the dust in the air and tracks of footprints, probably opened recently.
In the torchlight, it looks empty, but on second glace, there's a rag pile in the far corner.
Timmy [the PC with a -1 WIS mod] thinks something in the rags moved, but its probably the torchlight.
What do you do?

A GM should base their descriptions on what they want their players to think and feel, which requires a little bit of insight into what they already think and feel. And if a long description of minutia will make a player bored and frustrated, then you can reliably use that to make them bored and frustrated regardless of what you're actually describing because it really doesn't matter.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;937001"Brevity is the soul of wit."

Then why is #Twitter the most witless place on earth?

Quote from: rgrove0172;937006I have noticed, for example, on a few occasions my players would listen intently to a lengthy description of the setting, actually throwing in questions for more info afterward but will begin to fidget and exchange glances when my combat explanations become too involved.

As a player, when the GM is setting the scene, he is describing things with which I can potentially interact.  "Hmmm....DM mentioned some birds in the tree when describing the palace gardens ... I have a scroll of animal control tucked away ... having one poop on the duke would cause quite the distraction."

When the GM is describing a missed/successful attack, it isn't describing anything which I can use.  "Yes, yes, his sword blow was was mighty and should have rung true but my armor was strong, yes, yes.  I know the results of the attack, let's get on."  

I likewise have a fondness for waxing descriptive when DMing.  Outside of combat, I fill most any pause in table conversation with further description of the area or something happening around them.  Just don't overly describe any one thing and give pauses for players to have a chance to do stuff.

In combat, no more than one breath's worth of descriptions.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;937009Good point, and also good point that one to one gaming is different from a group.

And more than anything else, read your players.  And as a player don't be afraid to speak up one way or the other.  Once again, "talk to each other."

And Jeff's point about D&D 3.5 is a good one too... combat ALREADY takes for fucking ever and if somebody launches into flowery descriptions for every die roll I'm going to punch them in the face so hard they shit their own liver, just because I want the combat to be concluded before I die of old age.

Lmao

Quote from: rgrove0172;936992So do you spend a paragraph describing the old ruins the players just encountered, complete with atmospheric adjectives, cool comparisons and detailed descriptions or do you tell them they are some spooky old ruins and let their brains conjure up what will?

I love descriptions of the environment, be it the locale, the people, the items, whatever. People who say a good description of the environment is useless are worse than morons. That said. I do believe there is a point past which it can go overboard. But that is absolutely YMMB territory and some players have a flat out pathological hatred of GMs describing stuff in any sort of detail. I really do not enjoy being a player in a group with that sort present.

On the other hand I dislike having words put in my characters mouth or actions taken for me by the DM. (unless that is part of the system somehow. And thats few and far between.) I dont mind the DM interpreting a roll Im unaware of and telling me what really happened. But Im not fond of the DM telling me I leaped over the table, did a double suplex backflip overarm takedown and then sticked the landing...
...er... no. Dont do that please.
Others really love that. I know. I got payed to GM exactly that. But the format was unique and its not something I'd ever do normally unless asked to. Also in near the end of Dragon Storms run we had some players not asking, but demanding that we come up with some absurd system so they could stay IC all session. Which is impossible short of the GM handling just short of everything for the character other than talking. And one of them Im not sure even on that.

Wheres that all fall in the gaming spectrum? Everywhere! As usual. Yep. Players have been trying every style pretty much right out the gate from publication of D&D. Verbose DMs? chesk. Minimalist GMs? check. Somewhere in between GMs? checkaroonie. As allways. The important question is. "Are the players enjoying *insert your style here* style of play? Yes? Rock on. No? Then you suck! Or the players suck. Or both." ahem...
Describe to me the world and I'll describe or imagine what I do there.