TheRPGSite

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. :D

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.

Quote from: Spinachcat;937014That's because your players are either stuffed animals or kidnap victims.

(http://rs11.pbsrc.com/albums/a170/RhymePhile/Weird%20stuff/1z21yxd.gif~c200)

Quote from: Spinachcat;937014It'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.

Yes, sifu.

Quote from: Spinachcat;937014Players don't need to be led.

Then what is the referee to do to set the scene, sifu?

Quote from: Spinachcat;937014. . . [P]layers 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.

And how is CLARITY achieved, sifu?

Quote from: Spinachcat;937014I take great pains to achieve CLARITY through MINIMALISM.

And how does one find MINIMALISM, sifu?

Quote from: Spinachcat;937014I 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.

Satori.

Or as I wrote in the other [strike]trainwreck[/strike] thread . . .

Quote from: Black Vulmea;936584. . . [E]veryone at the table has an imagination capable of understanding 'a warm spring day' without the Bulwer-Lytton. 'A cheap saloon' sets a scene all by its own self, and when I'm describing the scene, I'm going for those things which make it distinctive from another cheap saloon, to highlight resources, draw attention, misdirect, whatever, but not bore the shit out of the players with bad prose describing what they can see more sharply in their own mind's-eyes than I could ever hope to describe.

My medieval fantasy RP looks very medieval (even if it doesn't ACT very medieval).  So pictures from my library plus stills from various Hollywood costume dramas work really well for me to say "It looks like this."

What does a badass castle look like?  Google "Harlech."  What does Duke Fancy Fightypants' armor look like?  Google "Lorenz Helmscmidt harness for Archduke Sigismund of Tyrol."

Etc.

I also swipe tropes.  "A big black car screeches around a corner and slams to a stop.  A bunch of hoods in badly fitting loud pinstripe suits get out brandishing Tommy guns with drum magazines."

(Notice this is "scene setting".)

I am largely wth Gronan in that brevity is virtue in this issue. However I believe there a minimum and if not met the referee is being unfair to his players. What I do is describe every obvious detail that could factor into the decisions of the PCs. What is obvious? It depends outline a situation and I will tell you want I think. It varies a lot and mostly learned because I been refereeing since the late 70s.

The goal in my mind is to avoid playing a game of twenty questions about a situation. Yes in many encounters there will details that can only be found through investigation. But that OK. It the obvious shit that player get pissed about when not supplied. "Oh the bridge is over lava!  Now you tell me?"

As a general rule I will supply additional color detail if the party shown an interest in such thing. Also when a player has a skill or ability that gives only him those additional details through a note.

Also part of my decision process is to visualize what I would see if I was actually standing there. It not something everybody can do right off but it can be a skill that can be mastered.

This is a part of refereeing that is best learned through example or actual experience.

Sometimes I'm trying to set a mood... or get across a particular aesthetic. Other times it's 'just the facts ma'am', and then let the Players ask for more details. Like the difference between saying, "There's a door" and "There's an ancient door with splintered wood and big rusted hinges".

As a Player, I'd say I generally would like GMs to put a bit more effort into their descriptions... not a dramatic narrative performance, but some more attention to various senses... how a place smell and sounds... beside it's basic floorplan.

Where I stand on this issue depends on the system, setting, genre, group and my own mood
 Change one or more of these and I could move all over the place.
But as a rule, I strive for enlightened brevity.

Quote from: AsenRG;937087Where I stand on this issue depends on the system, setting, genre, group and my own mood
 Change one or more of these and I could move all over the place.
But as a rule, I strive for enlightened brevity.

I am not nearly as nuanced. Either something helps to increase the fun of a game session or it doesn't. If it doesn't help to increase the fun, it is jettisoned.

Quote from: jeff37923;937088I am not nearly as nuanced. Either something helps to increase the fun of a game session or it doesn't. If it doesn't help to increase the fun, it is jettisoned.

Fun is always the point:). I just pointed out some things that might change what would be unfun elsewhere or at another time into being fun for the here and now.
A group that likes more flowery prose would make me raise slightly my wordcount for the benefit of the group, even if I'm describing the same move, if playing Wushu I'd be definitely describing more Details, and so on;).

QuoteThat's because your players are either stuffed animals or kidnap victims. :D

Well, he is an advocate of solitaire "roleplaying". Not surprising he might also be a frustrated writer.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;937107Well, he is an advocate of solitaire "roleplaying". Not surprising he might also be a frustrated writer.

Truth in that. No denying it. Not sure which feeds which though.

What I like to do is get alot of the descriptor done early on and then keep it relatively brief afterwards untill an update is needed.

EG: I'll take some time to describe the dungeon's style and such when the PCs first enter. Dimensions, workings, any distinctive markings that are consistent throughout. Then after that keeping it to "You see another thirty foot long corridor with the same carvings on the ceiling as the rest of the place." and not waste time re-telling them the hall is the exact same 10x10 as every other hall. That way when I tell them "This section of hall funnels to half the height and width as you have been traversing so far. Also you note that the ceiling in this narrow passage lacks the usual carvings. But the floor has carvings instead." they notice. Then see what the players do. If they ask for more detail. THEN I embellish more detail as needed.

Same with NPCs. "You see another two personnel ahead dressed in the same uniform as the others you have seen so far. Except the right sleeve is purple for these two. Both are male and look alert." Where before I had established in detail the manner of clothing and the different sleeve colours which till now have been mostly yellows, browns and an occasional white.

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

Of course, the irony there is that Polonius goes on and on when speaking of the virtue of brevity.:-)

I give the just enough atmosphere to get a general impression, something Dungeon World actively calls for. The atmosphere is specific to the adventure, and there's more of it, depending on how much I have preplanned. For example, the first adventure they ran, which ended up being called "Blood Forest of the Dead Druid," had a list of impressions keyed to specific areas, to wit:

ENTRY:
A thick, wet, cloying red mist
The sickly sweet smell of blood.
The spongy, wet feel of the earth.

Discovered Areas:
*Large (lizard) tracks in a clearing, leading to the trunk of a tree.
*The sound of swirling wind, coming from a side trail.
*A crossroads with four different paths.
*A cavern reeking of offal, with six small, straw beds made, and a spoiled, uneaten meal on a doused spit.
*Signs of a brief struggle.
*An old campsite, with wood prepared for a fire. A tinderbox and supplies near it.
*The body of a dead horse, buried in a thicket, its entrails spilling out.
*An empty Ranger cabin, recently lived in.
*Elf tracks, running out of the wood, in the direction opposite Felston (the home base).
*A totem next to a clear stream inscribed in Trail Runes, reading, "Bad Water."
*Six eviscerated Goblin corpses, hanging from a large tree.
*A huge, ancient Great Ironwood tree at the center of the wood, its branches spreading in a thick, thick canopy (an extradimensional space contained inside, accessible through a ritual).

These MY starting notes, and I add as necessary (and usually not too much more than that, depending). The key point is that each of the impressions has to mean something. Even the "spongy ground" is a clue to the saturation aspect of the spreading mist (keyed to another threat, which I called "Misty Pits" or something of that nature).

So, I guess not much flowery drivel. I can WRITE flowery drivel, if need be, but those muscles just don't work as well when I'm speaking.

Well its not often I completely disagree here, and even more rare that I admit it for fear of reprisal but I have to balk at the notion that every description given by the GM has to be important, or mean something. First off if the players get wind of this they can zero in on things when in reality there would be no such sense that the one thing they notice is any more important than anything else. In addition, I have never liked the approach that the game world exists strictly for the whim of the players, that everything that happens must be associated with them, anything they are not involved with or don't experience just, well, doesn't happen and certainly isn't worth mentioning.

When working out settings I often have things going on that have nothing to do with the players, unless they should happen to take notice. When they look around they may see some of this, along with a hundred other things of note that have no baring on them at all. The purpose of some of that may be to entice them to look closer or maybe used to just give them a good feel for the scene.

"The market is alive this morning with dozens of enthusiastic vendors screaming over one another in an effort to attract customers. A leather worker waves a fine looking pair of boots in each hand and sings of a low, low price today only! A fruit peddler cries his apples were picked that very morning and juggles four with some effort as you pass. Further down the street the shrill cry of an old woman beneath a garish green tarpaulin advertises the very best baked goods east of the bridge. Dozens more fill the air in a cacophony of commerce, waking the city from its nighttime slumber."

No critique of the paragraph is necessary, love it, hate it - whatever. It serves to demonstrate how a bit of detail may direct the players (perhaps one of them decides he wants some boots, or is hungry) but may also simply paint a scene for them to imagine more in line with the GM.

If the GM had simply said "The market is busy and quite loud with a lot of vendors selling their stuff" I suppose the players could have gotten the same idea but doesn't it take away from the gaming experience just a bit?

Or does it?

Im betting a good percentage of GMs were introduced to gaming with GMs that were great at this sort of thing, probably the reason they took it upon themselves to be GMs in the first place. Ive had many players over the years claim they would like to run a game but cant "tell the story" well enough in their opinion. If you used to run your games with lots of descriptive detail and changed to something similar. Why? What advantage did it give you?

IM curious as Ive heard some claim exactly that. Over the years the left the flowery stuff behind. Maybe Im missing something...my ears are open!

Quote from: rgrove0172;937156. . . I have to balk at the notion that every description given by the GM has to be important, or mean something. First off if the players get wind of this they can zero in on things when in reality there would be no such sense that the one thing they notice is any more important than anything else.

Shit like this is why I think Grover has to be trolling the fuck out of this board, because no one's reading comprehension can be this bad, right?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;936584And once again we return to the point made by multiple posters in this thread, that everyone at the table has an imagination capable of understanding 'a warm spring day' without the Bulwer-Lytton. 'A cheap saloon' sets a scene all by its own self, and when I'm describing the scene, I'm going for those things which make it distinctive from another cheap saloon, to highlight resources, draw attention, misdirect, whatever, but not bore the shit out of the players with bad prose describing what they can see more sharply in their own mind's-eyes than I could ever hope to describe.

That's four different reasons to call something out, none of which allow the players to "zero-in" on a gawdamn thing to the exclusion of anything else.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937156In addition, I have never liked the approach that the game world exists strictly for the whim of the players, that everything that happens must be associated with them, anything they are not involved with or don't experience just, well, doesn't happen and certainly isn't worth mentioning.

And anyone who runs a world-in-motion sandbox knows this is complete bullshit as well.

Remember, Grover claims to be a railroady referee and a frustrated writer, while many of his posts are backhanded slaps against what could arguably be called the most prevalent playstyle on this board. The chances of this being a coincidence approach zero with every new thread.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;937161Shit like this is why I think Grover has to be trolling the fuck out of this board, because no one's reading comprehension can be this bad, right?


That's four different reasons to call something out, none of which allow the players to "zero-in" on a gawdamn thing to the exclusion of anything else.


And anyone who runs a world-in-motion sandbox knows this is complete bullshit as well.

Remember, Grover claims to be a railroady referee and a frustrated writer, while many of his posts are backhanded slaps against what could arguably be called the most prevalent playstyle on this board. The chances of this being a coincidence approach zero with every new thread.

Jesus people, is there a question I can post without all the whining for God's sake?

Moderator please close the fucking thread if you please.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937156"The market is alive this morning with dozens of enthusiastic vendors screaming over one another in an effort to attract customers. A leather worker waves a fine looking pair of boots in each hand and sings of a low, low price today only! A fruit peddler cries his apples were picked that very morning and juggles four with some effort as you pass. Further down the street the shrill cry of an old woman beneath a garish green tarpaulin advertises the very best baked goods east of the bridge. Dozens more fill the air in a cacophony of commerce, waking the city from its nighttime slumber."

'And then the EARS, I get the IDEA, get ON with it."

That paragraph is horribly overwritten, and any book that had that in it would most likely be utter garbage.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937156If the GM had simply said "The market is busy and quite loud with a lot of vendors selling their stuff"

 I suppose the players could have gotten the same idea but doesn't it take away from the gaming experience just a bit?

Or does it?

No.

In fact, I'd go as far as to say "Fuck no."

Take that first paragraph of yours to any writers' workshop and I'd bet my own weight in beer it gets ripped to shreds.  Overwriting is real, overwriting is bad, and overtalking in an RPG is just as awful.

And if I have to be told that a busy market has boots, I'm too stupid to shit unassisted.

"The market is already lively as mid morning approaches.  It's crowded and you hear vendors hawking just about everything imaginable."

"Is there a cobbler?"

"Why, yes.  In fact, several."

And my players have already made a decision while yours are still listening to you run off at the mouth.

I see my job as the GM to be the character's senses. Sight, smell, hearing, sensation etc. I also pick my players for the quality to meet me halfway there with their imagination. I provide details enough for them to filling the gaps themselves, with the "rule" being I suppose that if I want them to pick up on a certain mood, aesthetic, or environ than I provide as much description as is necessary to create that. I say rule, but this isn't a hard and fast approach, or really anything I think about, its just how I GM. I'm not there to narrate a novel to my players, and if I'm playing I'm aware that overly excessive narration can lead to boredom. I'm not there to be a passive audience to a GM's narrative inclinations, and I wouldn't want to subject my players to the same.

I tend to use a lot of art, often drawing sketches at the time as required. I prefer the back and forth of answering players questions rather than trying to pre-anticipate any question they might have.

But none of this is stuff I really think about, in a meta sense. I just do what needs to be done for the sake of the game.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937156"The market is alive this morning with dozens of enthusiastic vendors screaming over one another in an effort to attract customers. A leather worker waves a fine looking pair of boots in each hand and sings of a low, low price today only! A fruit peddler cries his apples were picked that very morning and juggles four with some effort as you pass. Further down the street the shrill cry of an old woman beneath a garish green tarpaulin advertises the very best baked goods east of the bridge. Dozens more fill the air in a cacophony of commerce, waking the city from its nighttime slumber."

I have no problem with this whatsoever.  Depending on why my PC is in town and walking through the market, this gives me plenty of things with which to interact and attempt to work toward my advantage.  My only hope is that you stay true to what this description of the market says about the town as a whole.  (For example, I now know that the town is very quiet at night with little activity.  I suspect there is a grudge against the townsfolk across the bridge.  Etc.)

Quote from: rgrove0172;937168Moderator please close the fucking thread if you please.

Not how it works.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937156Well its not often I completely disagree here, and even more rare that I admit it for fear of reprisal but I have to balk at the notion that every description given by the GM has to be important, or mean something.

If the GM had simply said "The market is busy and quite loud with a lot of vendors selling their stuff" I suppose the players could have gotten the same idea but doesn't it take away from the gaming experience just a bit?

Or does it?

Im betting a good percentage of GMs were introduced to gaming with GMs that were great at this sort of thing, probably the reason they took it upon themselves to be GMs in the first place. Ive had many players over the years claim they would like to run a game but cant "tell the story" well enough in their opinion. If you used to run your games with lots of descriptive detail and changed to something similar. Why? What advantage did it give you?

IM curious as Ive heard some claim exactly that. Over the years the left the flowery stuff behind. Maybe Im missing something...my ears are open!

1: Youd be absolutely right too. Every description in no way has to be relevant. It should be accurate. But in no way relevant to the PCs. Sometimes the kid standing at the corner with a flower is just a kid standing at a corner with a flower. Why is the kid there? Because shes waiting for her parents. None of which the PCs may ever know past that they saw a kid with a flower over there. Its in the background because the PCs are in a town and that town is doing its thing regardless of wether the PCs exist or not. Its a bit of colour to the locale. Used sparingly its a great tool to bring the game world to life in the players imaginations. (Assuming you dont have sub-morons as players.)

2: To me its a little too short a descriptor. But I can allways get details by asking the GM. Some like that brevity at the start and then quiz the GM for the rest. Others prefer the GM spoon feed them all the details in detail. And of course everything in between. It doesnt take away from the gaming experience as usually the assumption is the players will then ask for details. YMMV. Some players just cant engage that. They need everything up front. They cant think of what detail to ask.

3: Depends on the player. Really.

4: Define "tell the story" because when some say that they mean "describe whats going on and react to what the players do and then build on whats gone before." and others mean "a plotted story with a defined and allready set beginning middle and end." Switching one direction or the other from more to less or less to more could be the GM notice the players werent enjoying too much, or too little, and adapted accordingly. Or the GM over time gained more confidence or developed a style that worked with more, or less, description.

5: It may be that they didnt really leave it behind. They just adapted a style that is more Q&A than data blitzkrieg. I used to be a really brief describer of things. Way too brief in my opinion. Over time I hit on the method I described a few posts ago and it works fine. Over time I got more descriptive untill I hit a sort of equilibrium. Id lay good odds others started from the other end of the spectrum and over time cut back untill they hit their own equilibrium. And often that is influenced by the players. If you have a Q&A style group then you'll probably drift to shorter lead ins and then fan out from there. But if you had a group really into the info blitzkrieg then you may adapt gradually to be more verbose.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937156"The market is alive this morning with dozens of enthusiastic vendors screaming over one another in an effort to attract customers. A leather worker waves a fine looking pair of boots in each hand and sings of a low, low price today only! A fruit peddler cries his apples were picked that very morning and juggles four with some effort as you pass. Further down the street the shrill cry of an old woman beneath a garish green tarpaulin advertises the very best baked goods east of the bridge. Dozens more fill the air in a cacophony of commerce, waking the city from its nighttime slumber."

I happened to have a few people over today going over the Conan boardgame, so for the fuck of it, we did a little impromptu roleplaying.  Last time we left off, they were getting ready for a scouting trip to look for secret/underground ways into the city they are staying in, so we started with them doing anything they needed in the city to prepare.  I read them that text word for word.

One of the players went over to the fruit peddler and said "If you can juggle 5 my good man, I'll buy them, if you can juggle 6, I'll buy them all." {The player said he'd been to bazaars from the mid-east to the far-east while in the Navy and never saw a peddler juggle his fruit, so he was seeing if the guy was a thief or something}.
Another went over to the old woman and said "I'll have a loaf, mother, if you can tell me who bakes the best bread west of the bridge."{Just roleplaying, plus he's trying to get into Alchemy, so trying to talk to anyone who might know herbalists, distillers, makers of culinary supplies, etc.  Plus old women know all the gossip}
The other two went to go see if they could find a good price on a draft horse.

Critiques specifically on the text...

• screaming's a bit much, shouting, hailing etc would be better.
• "cacophony of commerce" they said just sounds like bad writing (they were glad I didn't write it)
• "waking the city from its nighttime slumber" was jarring, earliest things are the docks usually, or other transportation, fisherman, drovers, drivers, etc. as they get a start on the day, then the primary food markets, meat, fish, bread etc...  by the time the general market gets going, the vendors have been up for several hours and so have their customers.  Only a noble could wake to a general market in full cry.
• in fact the fruit peddler says his apples were picked that very morning, so it can't be first thing in the morning when he's selling them in the city.  If you're going to throw extra detail in, make sure it isn't jarring.  You kind of ran into this problem with the other morning scene too.
• none of them thought calling out a couple of specific vendors was too much, it was the literary embellishment as if you were writing for the piece to be entertaining in and of itself that was too much.
• there seems to be more than just a desire to convey information to players about the campaign in an interesting or entertaining manner, it's some kind of a performance

So...too much writing, not enough descriptive GMing.  You're still being Master of Ceremonies and trying to make your exact mental picture the one for the players instead of giving them some spice to kick their own imaginations into high gear.  You're up around 11, we need you at about an 8 tops.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937168Jesus people, is there a question I can post without all the whining for God's sake?

Moderator please close the fucking thread if you please.

You post the question, then take issue with the answers you get. Maybe stop posting the question. You overdo your descriptions because that's what you like to do. If your table likes it, fine. None of us are at your table, so who cares what we think?

Back on point: if it's a story you're telling, then give enough to tell the story and move on. A mound of vocabulary and point by point sense details aren't necessary in every scene. One person put, in big, capital letters the word CLARITY in the last post over this subject. There is a tipping point where excessive detail obscures clarity, like flotsam obscuring the waters.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937156Well its not often I completely disagree here, and even more rare that I admit it for fear of reprisal but I have to balk at the notion that every description given by the GM has to be important, or mean something. First off if the players get wind of this they can e looking pair of boots in each hand and sings of a low, low price today only! A fruit peddler cries his apples were picked that very morning and juggles four with some effort as you pass. Further down the street the shrill cry of an old woman beneath a garish green tarpaulin advertises the very best baked  in reality there would be no such sense that the one thing they notice is any more important than anything else. In addition, I have never liked the approach that the game world exists strictly for the whim of the players, that everything that happens must be associated with them, anything they are not involved with or don't experience just, well, doesn't happen and certainly isn't worth mentioning.

This is the heart of your problem. If you're "telling a story" then the word you choose to tell it have to have meaning and purpose in driving the story forward, otherwise why include them? That's storytelling 101. Everything else is self indulgence.

Granted, it's a game, and I guess not everyone the PCs meet HAS to mean something, but it's sure fucking-A better when they do. What's the point of the shrill-yelling woman? You pointed her out, so maybe I should talk to her? Or am I gonna strike up a conversation that leads nowhere? Does she know anything important to your story, or are we just channeling background noise?  The apple juggler. Is that gonna be a thing? Are was that "just some detail." Do I need to rob him to make him significant?

Why is what you say important? Because every person, every thing you toss into your campaign is a player invitation to some aspect of the story, yours and (especially) theirs. Do you really want to waste all that window dressing? Because that's what's going to happen if not everything you say means something. And as long as all that verbiage is tied to nothing significant, you're going to keep allowing yourself to trowel it out there, throwing out dead ends, whether anyone likes it or not.

Quote from: cranebump;937192Why is what you say important? Because every person, every thing you toss into your campaign is a player invitation to some aspect of the story, yours and (especially) theirs. Do you really want to waste all that window dressing? Because that's what's going to happen if not everything you say means something. And as long as all that verbiage is tied to nothing significant, you're going to keep allowing yourself to trowel it out there, throwing out dead ends, whether anyone likes it or not.

I disagree here to a degree. Window dressing can be useful. When used in moderation. Not everything has to be relevant as noted in my post up above. But too much and the relevant details, or the details at all can get lost in the wall of verbosity.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937156even more rare that I admit it for fear of reprisal

What reprisal? Its perfectly okay to disagree with any of the assholes here, myself included, and there is absolutely zero consequence to that.

However, what I'm suspecting from these question-based threads is that at least on some level you seem to be looking for validation for your approach to gaming, I just can't seem to understand why.

Quote from: CRKrueger;937186So...too much writing, not enough descriptive GMing.

Never read aloud boxed text; it will pretty much always fall flat.  Always change it to your own words.

T1 Village of Hommlet is my favorite adventure module, but I would never read the canned intro aloud.

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 often use an analogy in many areas of life of trying to put out a fire when you don't know the difference between gasoline and water. When I express concern over the possibility of people making matters worse by taking action to point out that inaction is sometimes preferable, I find a lot of people brush it off by saying, "Well, you need to strike a balance." Of course, even a small amount of gasoline will fuel the fire, while excessive amounts of water won't fail to extinguish it.

The point here is this: As I see it, the heart of what you ask is qualitative, not quantitative. And no, I don't mean quality comes from doing funny voices really well and having a sophisticated and even poetic vocabulary. What I find important in a description is it needs to have what might crudely be termed a call to action. The iconic devils heads from Tomb of Horrors aren't memorable because of the magic of Gygaxian prose. It encourages foolish adventurers to stick their arms in its mouth! Something about the description should fuel players and/or characters motivations. The number of words, or even style this requires can vary dramatically on a case-by-case basis.

If you're married to the aesthetic of the dramatic, or married to keeping everything short and to the point, there will certainly be times your descriptions aren't good as they could have been. Often times, blocks of spoken text are just wasted because there is no call to action within it. Other times, there may be one or more calls to action, but excess words serve as a distraction from that. On the other hand, "Skip the flavor text, B.A." is definitely not a healthy mode of thinking for players regardless of whatever their precious "preferences" may be. If I take the time to mention the room is lit by torches on the wall, it means you can actually take a torch from the wall and burn someone with it. Strictly speaking, it's not flavor text since it can impact the "game." And it doesn't just stop there. Atmosphere, I've learned, is extremely important. But again, atmosphere is not produced by dramatic flair. It comes from inviting the players to become involved.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937168Jesus people, is there a question I can post without all the whining for God's sake?

Nope.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937168Moderator please close the fucking thread if you please.

No way!! This is a good discussion!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;937169"The market is already lively as mid morning approaches.  It's crowded and you hear vendors hawking just about everything imaginable."

This is too generic for me.

Unless we're in Planescape's Sigil, I focus on the fact that fantasy faux-medieval markets mostly have shoddy local goods, with rare traders from afar hawking interesting baubles. Also, markets depend on the class, as a market in a peasant quarter is quite different than in the merchant's quarter where prices are in silver, not coppers.

For me, the description of the market needs to include factors that make this market unique to the setting locale. AKA, my faux-Greek market in Mazes & Minotaurs has tables stacked with feta cheese, bevies of veiled dancers spinning about and a blind prophet begging alms for Zeus in contrast to my scavenger's market in Gamma World where a plant creature is selling steaming butchered meat, a four armed mutant carries jugs of gray water and a half broken bot stumbles from stall to stall collecting rent.

Some players certainly don't need prompts to jump into the scene, but most players do.

Quote from: Tristram Evans;937174I see my job as the GM to be the character's senses. Sight, smell, hearing, sensation etc.

Absolutely true!!

Quote from: Tristram Evans;937174I tend to use a lot of art, often drawing sketches at the time as required.

Gronan mentioned this earlier too. Evocative art - either drawn or just downloaded - are great for getting everyone's imagination on the same page.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;937178Not how it works.

(http://rs1031.pbsrc.com/albums/y380/YouLycanThis/Real%20People/snape.gif~c200)

Quote from: Lunamancer;937202What I find important in a description is it needs to have what might crudely be termed a call to action. . . . [A]tmosphere is not produced by dramatic flair. It comes from inviting the players to become involved.

That's an intriguing take.

I can see something of this in my approach to setting a scene - call it 'first impressions' versus the 'lingering look.' Setting the scene invites the players and their characters to inquire, rather than dumping exposition on them.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937156"The market is alive this morning with dozens of enthusiastic vendors screaming over one another in an effort to attract customers. A leather worker waves a fine looking pair of boots in each hand and sings of a low, low price today only! A fruit peddler cries his apples were picked that very morning and juggles four with some effort as you pass. Further down the street the shrill cry of an old woman beneath a garish green tarpaulin advertises the very best baked goods east of the bridge. Dozens more fill the air in a cacophony of commerce, waking the city from its nighttime slumber."

So each one of these merchants is a Bard?

Here's how I'm going to re-write the scene of Rgrover...unless I felt like giving a detailed description. I usually don't, unless I want to help them imagine an exotic locale:).

"The morning sun is rising up over a market already in full swing. All the merchants who can are trying to attract your - and everybody else's - attention to their goods, using all kind of "ad slogans" and tricks, jusggling and singing included with some rare individuals. You see boots, apples and baked good vendors near you, and of course there's all kinds of wares for sale nearby."

Does it lose some of the details? Yes. The players can make those up on the spot and ask me to confirm or deny, or they can ask me to give more details if they plan on doing something with those details.

Quote from: jeff37923;937206So each one of these merchants is a Bard?

Everything but the juggling is just called "attracting customers" at some places. And the juggling might be called the same way, too, depending on location and wares sold;).

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."

Honest question:  Do you run mystery in your games?

Quote from: rgrove0172;937156"The market is alive this morning with dozens of enthusiastic vendors screaming over one another in an effort to attract customers. A leather worker waves a fine looking pair of boots in each hand and sings of a low, low price today only! A fruit peddler cries his apples were picked that very morning and juggles four with some effort as you pass. Further down the street the shrill cry of an old woman beneath a garish green tarpaulin advertises the very best baked goods east of the bridge. Dozens more fill the air in a cacophony of commerce, waking the city from its nighttime slumber."

Quote from: AsenRG;937214"The morning sun is rising up over a market already in full swing. All the merchants who can are trying to attract your - and everybody else's - attention to their goods, using all kind of "ad slogans" and tricks, jusggling and singing included with some rare individuals. You see boots, apples and baked good vendors near you, and of course there's all kinds of wares for sale nearby."

Of curiosity, are y'all literally drafting, editing, and rewriting flavor text in prepping your home games?  

I am coming from the angle of my prep maybe including a list of vendors in the market with agendas, and the actual flavor text setting the scene at the table being entirely extemporaneous.  Hence the exact wording the GM uses is unexpectedly less than perfect.

My notes for the market would be something like:

Leather worker:  trying to get coalition of merchants to fight thieves guild extortion
Apple vendor:  front for thieves guild.
Baker:  thieves guild often exhorts into baking poisonous pies

I suggest spending prep on content for the players to interact with and let flavor text be less than perfect at the table.

Quote from: cranebump;937190You post the question, then take issue with the answers you get. Maybe stop posting the question. You overdo your descriptions because that's what you like to do. If your table likes it, fine. None of us are at your table, so who cares what we think?

Back on point: if it's a story you're telling, then give enough to tell the story and move on. A mound of vocabulary and point by point sense details aren't necessary in every scene. One person put, in big, capital letters the word CLARITY in the last post over this subject. There is a tipping point where excessive detail obscures clarity, like flotsam obscuring the waters.

I took issue with Black Vulmea ' drivel and any of the other inflammatory bullshit that substitutes for healthy conversation. I included the quote so that would be understood. I enjoy open debate but the tact less worms that just bitch, moan and badmouth just piss me off.

Quote from: Tristram Evans;937198What reprisal? Its perfectly okay to disagree with any of the assholes here, myself included, and there is absolutely zero consequence to that.

However, what I'm suspecting from these question-based threads is that at least on some level you seem to be looking for validation for your approach to gaming, I just can't seem to understand why.

You are suspecting wrong. I'm asking questions to expand my admittedly narrow GM experience base, having done things a certain way for many years. I want to hear why others do what they do, I don't particularly need to hear how badly my way sucks or why I am a troll for presenting it.

Quote from: Old One Eye;937228Of curiosity, are y'all literally drafting, editing, and rewriting flavor text in prepping your home games?  

I am coming from the angle of my prep maybe including a list of vendors in the market with agendas, and the actual flavor text setting the scene at the table being entirely extemporaneous.  Hence the exact wording the GM uses is unexpectedly less than perfect.

My notes for the market would be something like:

Leather worker:  trying to get coalition of merchants to fight thieves guild extortion
Apple vendor:  front for thieves guild.
Baker:  thieves guild often exhorts into baking poisonous pies

I suggest spending prep on content for the players to interact with and let flavor text be less than perfect at the table.

I've never drafted descriptors, I let them fly. Some are better than others of course.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936992The 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.

I was a little surprised by the intensity of some of the negative reactions. I recall allot of gming advice early on about being descriptive and using description to bring the world to life for your PC both from other more experienced GM and articles in publications like Dragon magazine.

In play, I've found it to be a successful technique. Of course, every descriptions isn't a work of art but players have seemed to appreciate. From the other side of the screen, the games I've like the most have included more description and details.  

QuoteSo 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 go for more detail and trying to create and evocative mood and atmosphere that fits the tone of the game I'm running; the genre as well. Some genres are more appropriate for “flowery” descriptions that others and every locale doesn't need them but some basic information on sights, sounds, even smells can go along way towards getting players into the world or the scene.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937156"The market is alive this morning with dozens of enthusiastic vendors screaming over one another in an effort to attract customers. A leather worker waves a fine looking pair of boots in each hand and sings of a low, low price today only! A fruit peddler cries his apples were picked that very morning and juggles four with some effort as you pass. Further down the street the shrill cry of an old woman beneath a garish green tarpaulin advertises the very best baked goods east of the bridge. Dozens more fill the air in a cacophony of commerce, waking the city from its nighttime slumber."
[

That seems like a fine description, evocative and sets a mood but doesn't tell the players how they have to react to the scene. It feels very “alive”.

QuoteIf the GM had simply said "The market is busy and quite loud with a lot of vendors selling their stuff" I suppose the players could have gotten the same idea but doesn't it take away from the gaming experience just a bit?

Or does it?

It would for me.

QuoteIm betting a good percentage of GMs were introduced to gaming with GMs that were great at this sort of thing, probably the reason they took it upon themselves to be GMs in the first place.

It is part of why I like to GM.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937232I've never drafted descriptors, I let them fly. Some are better than others of course.

I admit I have jotted down descriptive notes ahead of time when I felt a details was really important/interesting/cool and didn't want to forget it. Or because a cool idea struck me.

Quote from: Old One Eye;937228Leather worker:  trying to get coalition of merchants to fight thieves guild extortion
Apple vendor:  front for thieves guild.
Baker:  thieves guild often exhorts into baking poisonous pies

I suggest spending prep on content for the players to interact with and let flavor text be less than perfect at the table.

And there it is. Three doors into the adventure. Nice illustration (my notes look very similar--a lot of "NPC is looking to..." or their aim is, and etc.). If anyone wants to add detail on top of that, more power to them, but at least everything has a purpose in some fashion.

On grove's comment about why people went into GM'ing, I didn't go into it because I was so much better at description. I was the only one willing to do the prep and devour the rules. That's how it worked with a LOT of our games--I was the one who knew the damned rules, because everyone else was too lazy to read them.:-/

A little bit of this, a little bit of that. It all depends on the situation. Sometimes, flowery descriptions make sense. Other times, brevity is more important.

But I never, ever, ever read from block text. Ever.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937231You are suspecting wrong. I'm asking questions to expand my admittedly narrow GM experience base, having done things a certain way for many years. I want to hear why others do what they do, I don't particularly need to hear how badly my way sucks or why I am a troll for presenting it.

Well, if you're going to look for advice around here, you have to pay less attention to the gift wrapping, which can be loud, crude, obnoxious, and barely taped up.:-) Fuck it, DON'T ask for advice here. Talk about set in your ways--you are not alone (look at our responses).

You say you like the debate, but, honestly, I don't think you do. Looking at things as debate puts you in the position of having to defend an assertion. Now, you frame these threads as "questions," but every question is an invitation for an opinion, and they flow pretty freely here, much in the same manner as a lot of social media (to include the informed, the ill-informed, and those who just like to shout). When there are no consequences to the exchange, i.e., we're not having a ftf conversation, and so cannot be as readily held accountable for our bullshit, you'll tend to get more of it (bullshit begets bullshit).

If you want to gauge your style, may I suggest putting polls out there? You posed the idea that folks went into GM'ing because of some perceived skill at description or story telling (I think). It would be interesting to see if that's the case around here (I really don't think it is). This thread could've started with a poll concerning the amount of detail people like.  In any case, coming in and admitting you have a narrow GM base, then setting yourself up to constantly defend it isn't going to achieve very much, unless you can find some nuggets you can use (outside the inevitable shit nuggets--though some gold may be covered in all that shit).

Ask yourself--is this about expanding your skill set? Or are you, like a lot of us, I suspect, going to do things the way you do them, because that's what works for YOU? If it's the latter, then consider all of these discussions as what they are, metaphorically -- a bill set before the current American Congress, who feel no need to come to a consensus. Because that's sort of where we end up.

Just a reminder--you're not "doing it wrong." You're just doing what you do. If you think it'd be worth it to get out of your comfort zone a bit, my suggestion isn't to take a bunch of pieces of advice from here and glue them in your frame. If you want to get out of your zone, pick a system that you think is anathema to your style, and try to run that (btw, been there done that [thanks 3.5, 4E, AD&D, Gurps, Hero System, etc., etc. etc.]). Otherwise, just play your goddamned game, man, with players who like your style. I've seen more than one responding to your questions who look like they'd fit right in. Hell, I'd play at your table, grove, because you seem fair and thoughtful, and dedicated (though I'd probably fuck with you a LOT).:-)

P.S. If you're sincere about getting out of your box, try Freebooters on the Frontier. It allows your players some narrative control, and world creation is whole cloth. Use the Perilous Wilds with it. It's Dungeon World, but a bit more gritty. If you want big, damned heroes, go with DW. I suggest this because I don't feel like tour issue is detail. It's the hands firmly on the wheel. The srd is here (http://www.dungeonworldsrd.com/).

Quote from: rgrove0172;937230I took issue with Black Vulmea ' drivel and any of the other inflammatory bullshit that substitutes for healthy conversation. I included the quote so that would be understood. I enjoy open debate but the tact less worms that just bitch, moan and badmouth just piss me off.

That's what the ignore list is for. If the bullshit is really getting to you that bad, filter it out. Why let some anonymous bullshit affect you so much.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937156Well its not often I completely disagree here, and even more rare that I admit it for fear of reprisal but I have to balk at the notion that every description given by the GM has to be important, or mean something. First off if the players get wind of this they can zero in on things when in reality there would be no such sense that the one thing they notice is any more important than anything else. In addition, I have never liked the approach that the game world exists strictly for the whim of the players, that everything that happens must be associated with them, anything they are not involved with or don't experience just, well, doesn't happen and certainly isn't worth mentioning.

When working out settings I often have things going on that have nothing to do with the players, unless they should happen to take notice. When they look around they may see some of this, along with a hundred other things of note that have no baring on them at all. The purpose of some of that may be to entice them to look closer or maybe used to just give them a good feel for the scene.

"The market is alive this morning with dozens of enthusiastic vendors screaming over one another in an effort to attract customers. A leather worker waves a fine looking pair of boots in each hand and sings of a low, low price today only! A fruit peddler cries his apples were picked that very morning and juggles four with some effort as you pass. Further down the street the shrill cry of an old woman beneath a garish green tarpaulin advertises the very best baked goods east of the bridge. Dozens more fill the air in a cacophony of commerce, waking the city from its nighttime slumber."

No critique of the paragraph is necessary, love it, hate it - whatever. It serves to demonstrate how a bit of detail may direct the players (perhaps one of them decides he wants some boots, or is hungry) but may also simply paint a scene for them to imagine more in line with the GM.

If the GM had simply said "The market is busy and quite loud with a lot of vendors selling their stuff" I suppose the players could have gotten the same idea but doesn't it take away from the gaming experience just a bit?

Or does it?

Im betting a good percentage of GMs were introduced to gaming with GMs that were great at this sort of thing, probably the reason they took it upon themselves to be GMs in the first place. Ive had many players over the years claim they would like to run a game but cant "tell the story" well enough in their opinion. If you used to run your games with lots of descriptive detail and changed to something similar. Why? What advantage did it give you?

IM curious as Ive heard some claim exactly that. Over the years the left the flowery stuff behind. Maybe Im missing something...my ears are open!

Different strokes but I think the first paragraph is going to get tuned out by a lot of players. I used to GM that way (particularly in my Ravenloft campaigns). Over time I shifted to speaking more in my regular conversational style. I find that I personally start losing interest when it feels like the GM is constructing paragraphs of description and emulating the boxed text style of delivery. That said, if my players are more receptive to longer descriptions, I'd happily use them. It doesn't have to be so short that it only conveys the market is busy and people are selling stuff. But you can give examples without a full paragraph of description. I'd say I try to stick to one to two sentences. But it also isn't a rule. If I need more room I will take more room. What I don't do any more is strive for something that feels like prose.

It depends. I've used quite a bit of description before. Nowadays I'd be more inclined to state the dimensions of the room, any visible contents, and then let Generic game group 5968 get on with the murderhoboing. I don't want to get accused of being a storygamer by including needless things like roleplay and plot. No one cares anyway, they just want loot. :D

Quote from: cranebump;937235And there it is. Three doors into the adventure. Nice illustration (my notes look very similar--a lot of "NPC is looking to..." or their aim is, and etc.). If anyone wants to add detail on top of that, more power to them, but at least everything has a purpose in some fashion.

On grove's comment about why people went into GM'ing, I didn't go into it because I was so much better at description. I was the only one willing to do the prep and devour the rules. That's how it worked with a LOT of our games--I was the one who knew the damned rules, because everyone else was too lazy to read them.:-/

Yes, that's probably what determined most GMs, the most enthusiastic member of the group that would actually buy the game and read it. I think the creative spirit had something to do with it too though, world building and all that.

Quote from: cranebump;937238Well, if you're going to look for advice around here, you have to pay less attention to the gift wrapping, which can be loud, crude, obnoxious, and barely taped up.:-) Fuck it, DON'T ask for advice here. Talk about set in your ways--you are not alone (look at our responses).

You say you like the debate, but, honestly, I don't think you do. Looking at things as debate puts you in the position of having to defend an assertion. Now, you frame these threads as "questions," but every question is an invitation for an opinion, and they flow pretty freely here, much in the same manner as a lot of social media (to include the informed, the ill-informed, and those who just like to shout). When there are no consequences to the exchange, i.e., we're not having a ftf conversation, and so cannot be as readily held accountable for our bullshit, you'll tend to get more of it (bullshit begets bullshit).

If you want to gauge your style, may I suggest putting polls out there? You posed the idea that folks went into GM'ing because of some perceived skill at description or story telling (I think). It would be interesting to see if that's the case around here (I really don't think it is). This thread could've started with a poll concerning the amount of detail people like.  In any case, coming in and admitting you have a narrow GM base, then setting yourself up to constantly defend it isn't going to achieve very much, unless you can find some nuggets you can use (outside the inevitable shit nuggets--though some gold may be covered in all that shit).

Ask yourself--is this about expanding your skill set? Or are you, like a lot of us, I suspect, going to do things the way you do them, because that's what works for YOU? If it's the latter, then consider all of these discussions as what they are, metaphorically -- a bill set before the current American Congress, who feel no need to come to a consensus. Because that's sort of where we end up.

Just a reminder--you're not "doing it wrong." You're just doing what you do. If you think it'd be worth it to get out of your comfort zone a bit, my suggestion isn't to take a bunch of pieces of advice from here and glue them in your frame. If you want to get out of your zone, pick a system that you think is anathema to your style, and try to run that (btw, been there done that [thanks 3.5, 4E, AD&D, Gurps, Hero System, etc., etc. etc.]). Otherwise, just play your goddamned game, man, with players who like your style. I've seen more than one responding to your questions who look like they'd fit right in. Hell, I'd play at your table, grove, because you seem fair and thoughtful, and dedicated (though I'd probably fuck with you a LOT).:-)

P.S. If you're sincere about getting out of your box, try Freebooters on the Frontier. It allows your players some narrative control, and world creation is whole cloth. Use the Perilous Wilds with it. It's Dungeon World, but a bit more gritty. If you want big, damned heroes, go with DW. I suggest this because I don't feel like tour issue is detail. It's the hands firmly on the wheel. The srd is here (http://www.dungeonworldsrd.com/).

One thing you are absolutely right about is my getting a thicker skin. When someone comes off snarky and demeaning I get frustrated with the whole idea of a forum and am tempted to just log off in a fit. I hate confrontations and pretty much respond this way in real life, not having the time or energy for anyone not willing to form their argument civilly. Its def something I need to get used to here, seeing a condescending and belittling comment as an invitation to frame my argument differently rather than going off in huff.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;937241That's what the ignore list is for. If the bullshit is really getting to you that bad, filter it out. Why let some anonymous bullshit affect you so much.

Uggh..direct hit, well said.

Quote from: Krimson;937244It depends. I've used quite a bit of description before. Nowadays I'd be more inclined to state the dimensions of the room, any visible contents, and then let Generic game group 5968 get on with the murderhoboing. I don't want to get accused of being a storygamer by including needless things like roleplay and plot. No one cares anyway, they just want loot. :D

I know what you mean but some do care, some care a lot. Ive had many players over the years and consider myself incredibly lucky Ive never experienced the dreaded 'murder hobo' or many of the other nightmarish player personaes spoken about so lovingly. Ive been pretty picky about who was invited to games and perhaps that's been the secret or maybe its been just blind luck but my players have generally been on the same page as me when it comes to many of the elements of GM style I have raised here.

This thread for example - most, if not all, of my players have been avid readers of fiction and tend to dig into books related to the game we are about to embark on or are already enjoying. When we come to the table we more or less expect a similar experience to what we have been reading, complete with overly used adjectives and tediously descriptive prose.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937256I know what you mean but some do care, some care a lot. Ive had many players over the years and consider myself incredibly lucky Ive never experienced the dreaded 'murder hobo' or many of the other nightmarish player personaes spoken about so lovingly. Ive been pretty picky about who was invited to games and perhaps that's been the secret or maybe its been just blind luck but my players have generally been on the same page as me when it comes to many of the elements of GM style I have raised here.

This thread for example - most, if not all, of my players have been avid readers of fiction and tend to dig into books related to the game we are about to embark on or are already enjoying. When we come to the table we more or less expect a similar experience to what we have been reading, complete with overly used adjectives and tediously descriptive prose.

The drawback is sure you can get rid of all storygame elements from an RPG, and then realize you don't actually need a DM anymore. And then eventually people realize that what you have left is a board game, so you might as well just play a tactical combat game or a video game. I don't mind roleplaying but I'm not going to waste my time on things if the players just want to fight stuff. I've even had players in the past that could not grok the concept of RP. They would look at you like you were an eight year old girl wanting to play house. This is probably why most of the people I used to play D&D with now just play video games.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937256This thread for example - most, if not all, of my players have been avid readers of fiction and tend to dig into books related to the game we are about to embark on or are already enjoying. When we come to the table we more or less expect a similar experience to what we have been reading, complete with overly used adjectives and tediously descriptive prose.

I think a lot of people here started in a similar place. That was the zeitgeist when I was in highschool for example. I spent years doing exactly what you describe. But over time, I found this created a lot of problems for us at the table and the two mediums just don't jive all that well if you try to bring it in like that. I am sure it still works for plenty of people. I've just found, the less I worry about making games feel like a novel, the more I tend to enjoy them.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937256I know what you mean but some do care, some care a lot. Ive had many players over the years and consider myself incredibly lucky Ive never experienced the dreaded 'murder hobo' or many of the other nightmarish player personaes spoken about so lovingly. Ive been pretty picky about who was invited to games and perhaps that's been the secret or maybe its been just blind luck but my players have generally been on the same page as me when it comes to many of the elements of GM style I have raised here.

This thread for example - most, if not all, of my players have been avid readers of fiction and tend to dig into books related to the game we are about to embark on or are already enjoying. When we come to the table we more or less expect a similar experience to what we have been reading, complete with overly used adjectives and tediously descriptive prose.

That's been it for ny groups. The game just felt more fun when they felt like a novel or short story or movie. Our Star Wars d6 game was chockful of cinematic elements and structure and its one the participants still talk about fondly decades later.

Quote from: AsenRG;937214Everything but the juggling is just called "attracting customers" at some places. And the juggling might be called the same way, too, depending on location and wares sold;).

Makes me think more of a fair or festival than a regular market. Perhaps the party walked in on a local fair? Hence why the place is like this so early.

Quote from: Omega;937284Makes me think more of a fair or festival than a regular market. Perhaps the party walked in on a local fair? Hence why the place is like this so early.

That's one of the things about the other morning description, it's a little off as well.  I think the disconnect is that Grove just comes up with these and they're not meant to give any real information.  They're not a mix of content and color, they're just filler.  Now, that could simply be because he's not tying them to anything from one of his campaigns, so there's no content there.  That could be why it's coming across as self-indulgent because he's just trying to be flavorful without actually having any content to give, so that might be why it's coming off as extraneous, because it is.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937230I enjoy open debate but the tact less worms that just bitch, moan and badmouth just piss me off.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937231You are suspecting wrong. I'm asking questions to expand my admittedly narrow GM experience base, having done things a certain way for many years. I want to hear why others do what they do, I don't particularly need to hear how badly my way sucks or why I am a troll for presenting it.

1+2: Then stop backhanding other peoples styles in just about every thread you start? Really. You did in this one, the one before, the one before that and so on. Sometimes again later in the thread. Not to mention the deliberate baiting thats creeped into alot of your posts which isnt helping matters at all. You are conditioning people to take a defensive or negative stance because you slip in an attack either at the start or later in. And you do that even to the people who agree with some point or are openly discussing the idea rather than knee-jerk reactions.

X: Take a look back in this thread alone and you'll see some of us disagree with the idea of brevity. Or at least too much brevity. Just as there can be too much verbosity.

Quote from: CRKrueger;937285That's one of the things about the other morning description, it's a little off as well.  I think the disconnect is that Grove just comes up with these and they're not meant to give any real information.  They're not a mix of content and color, they're just filler.  Now, that could simply be because he's not tying them to anything from one of his campaigns, so there's no content there.  That could be why it's coming across as self-indulgent because he's just trying to be flavorful without actually having any content to give, so that might be why it's coming off as extraneous, because it is.

Exactly, they are examples, descriptions of nothing. Presented not as much for content but what the represent.

Quote from: Omega;9372881+2: Then stop backhanding other peoples styles in just about every thread you start? Really. You did in this one, the one before, the one before that and so on. Sometimes again later in the thread. Not to mention the deliberate baiting thats creeped into alot of your posts which isnt helping matters at all. You are conditioning people to take a defensive or negative stance because you slip in an attack either at the start or later in. And you do that even to the people who agree with some point or are openly discussing the idea rather than knee-jerk reactions.

X: Take a look back in this thread alone and you'll see some of us disagree with the idea of brevity. Or at least too much brevity. Just as there can be too much verbosity.

I did go back and read, I can't find an attack on my part anywhere, on any thread. I'm missing something or some are misreading the intent of my posts.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937230I took issue with Black Vulmea ' drivel and any of the other inflammatory bullshit that substitutes for healthy conversation.

Grover, your threads both here and Big Purple were dumpster fires long, long, long before I started contributing to them. Don't blame me for your shit-shows.

Quote from: Nexus;937269The game just felt more fun when they felt like a novel or short story or movie.

Whereas what I enjoy most about roleplaying games is how they're different from novels or short stories or movies.

Perhaps the most appreciated compliment I received as a referee came from someone who read our actual play logs on my wiki - he said our game seemed less like a story and more like life itself. That's what I strive for, not three acts, rising and falling action, and a dramatic climax.

You walk into a thread. It's a shit show.

Surveying the scene from top to bottom you observe posters arguing with each other trivially pointless details. You try to make sense of their ramblings, but your eyes glaze over with boredom. It seems the argument has been going on for quite some time, but you can no longer tell what they're talking about. At moments it seems the posters are polite with each other, almost cordial, but all that does is set up a new round of bickering instead of letting the discussion die a natural death.

There doesn't seem to be anything of value here, but you find it hard to pull yourself away, almost like a mysterious force is drawing you into the abyss...

Quote from: Old One Eye;937228Of curiosity, are y'all literally drafting, editing, and rewriting flavor text in prepping your home games?  

Me:D? Not at all, I just rewrote what Rgrove had written, expressly so I could post it in this thread.

Quote from: Omega;937284Makes me think more of a fair or festival than a regular market. Perhaps the party walked in on a local fair? Hence why the place is like this so early.

The line between a market and a fair in a medieval city would probably be thin at best;).

Quote from: Ashakyre;937307You walk into a thread. It's a shit show.

Surveying the scene from top to bottom you observe posters arguing with each other trivially pointless details. You try to make sense of their ramblings, but your eyes glaze over with boredom. It seems the argument has been going on for quite some time, but you can no longer tell what they're talking about. At moments it seems the posters are polite with each other, almost cordial, but all that does is set up a new round of bickering instead of letting the discussion die a natural death.

There doesn't seem to be anything of value here, but you find it hard to pull yourself away, almost like a mysterious force is drawing you into the abyss...

Good one! :D:D

Shemek

Quote from: CRKrueger;937285That's one of the things about the other morning description, it's a little off as well.  I think the disconnect is that Grove just comes up with these and they're not meant to give any real information.  They're not a mix of content and color, they're just filler.  Now, that could simply be because he's not tying them to anything from one of his campaigns, so there's no content there.  That could be why it's coming across as self-indulgent because he's just trying to be flavorful without actually having any content to give, so that might be why it's coming off as extraneous, because it is.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937303Exactly, they are examples, descriptions of nothing. Presented not as much for content but what the represent.

This really underscores a lot of the issue. See - for those of us that do "World-in-Motion" sandbox games, your scene is just stage-dressing. It's literally scenery painted with words that the PC's aren't supposed to touch, or interact with, just listen to as you shoot them out of your mouth.

I'm not going to re-write your flavor text. But in my games, if I were to give that florid description of a scene, *each* and *every* word is an invitation for interaction. This is why people say keep it short and sweet (SWEET being the thing that entices the players) - for a couple of reasons:

1) It allows the players to envision the scene and hopefully ask questions relevant to *them* via their PC's. Give your players some credit for having imagination. If they ask you - sure go for it. Go full bouquet of 25-cent words if they want clarification. Then you all get what you want.

2) You have to put your money where your mouth is. If you mention it, you should be prepared for the PC to interact with it. If it's not worth interacting with - then it's not worth mentioning. Even still - players will wanna do this and GMing is part of fleshing things out. As CKrueger mentioned in the other thread - this is that Chaos Wave that can lead to wonderful things if you ride it well. It gives your players agency and your world will come alive instead of being 2-dimensional stage-props meant to be seen at a specific angle.

I had a *really* embarrassing experience when I let one of my players, a neophyte GM run a campaign. I mentioned this a while back on another thread...

Basically I was playing and he was doing *exactly* what you were doing: describing a bunch of stuff that seemed curious to me as a player. He described a trading post in a place where by all logic a trading post shouldn't exist. And we were dealing with a "crafty" guild of thieves and so I was on high-alert. So he described all these porters loading crates in and out of this warehouse. We were in the middle of nowhere - why is there a warehouse here? What could they be loading? So I went into the warehouse and took a look around and the GM says it's filled with crates. The GM started to get nervous as I went to a crate when no one was looking - and asked "What's in the crate?"

The GM said "Uhh... nothing is in the crate."
I'm like.... 'whaaaaat'? Nothing is in the crate?!?!? I go check another crate! I pry it open with my short-sword!"
"Nothing is in that crate either."
"Nothing?!?! I go to another crate! I open it!"
"There's nothing in that crate either. Look there's nothing in any of the crates. There's nothing in the other warehouse either!"

Then I start freaking out - because suddenly I start thinking the Thieves Guild has set up a trap for us and built this fake-outpost to get us. I'm telling the rest of the group to get ready because /Ackbar Voice "IT'S A TRAP!!!"

When in reality - the noob GM was just putting in a setpiece with no intention of us doing anything there and I put him on the spot the moment I said "What's in the crate?" He simply couldn't improv enough to tell me what the fuck is in a random crate (which is why for those that aren't good at improv - random tables RULE!)

To this day in my group "What's the in crate" is a meme for us. I even meta-wink at it in my games when I describe a "warehouse full of crates." No one tries to open them because they know damn well I can tell you what's in every fucking crate within a 1000-miles of their position. (I'm good at improv).

But the point is - your players ideas of the situation are almost *always* better/more important than yours as a GM. Your job is to convey as much clarity as possible and let their imaginations do the heavy lifting. Not your prose. Plus the ability to let your PC's go off-roading from your script is the real call to adventure you're looking for. The unknown is always more thrilling than the proscribed "thrill-ride" that ultimately is predictable.

Right. Dont mention stuff unless you are willing to accept that the players might randomly focus on it out of the blue and possibly over-focus on it.

But the "Whats in the crate" example above is part of what I mean by the Q&A style of detail. DM describes the street the PCs are on and on the left is a row of houses and on the left is a empty lot. A temple of some sort from its appearance and another empty lot. And from there the players can ask for more detail or continue on. Sort of the "at a glance this is what you see." approach.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;937306Grover, your threads both here and Big Purple were dumpster fires long, long, long before I started contributing to them. Don't blame me for your shit-shows.


Whereas what I enjoy most about roleplaying games is how they're different from novels or short stories or movies.

Perhaps the most appreciated compliment I received as a referee came from someone who read our actual play logs on my wiki - he said our game seemed less like a story and more like life itself. That's what I strive for, not three acts, rising and falling action, and a dramatic climax.

And that is,a profound difference that explains much. Some of us are looking for theatrical drama, some I suppose a more mundane/real experience. Should have established that at the beginning and avoided a lot of consternation.

Didn't mean to single you out Black, you were just the most recent to respond that way.

Quote from: tenbones;937338This really underscores a lot of the issue. See - for those of us that do "World-in-Motion" sandbox games, your scene is just stage-dressing. It's literally scenery painted with words that the PC's aren't supposed to touch, or interact with, just listen to as you shoot them out of your mouth.

I'm not going to re-write your flavor text. But in my games, if I were to give that florid description of a scene, *each* and *every* word is an invitation for interaction. This is why people say keep it short and sweet (SWEET being the thing that entices the players) - for a couple of reasons:

1) It allows the players to envision the scene and hopefully ask questions relevant to *them* via their PC's. Give your players some credit for having imagination. If they ask you - sure go for it. Go full bouquet of 25-cent words if they want clarification. Then you all get what you want.

2) You have to put your money where your mouth is. If you mention it, you should be prepared for the PC to interact with it. If it's not worth interacting with - then it's not worth mentioning. Even still - players will wanna do this and GMing is part of fleshing things out. As CKrueger mentioned in the other thread - this is that Chaos Wave that can lead to wonderful things if you ride it well. It gives your players agency and your world will come alive instead of being 2-dimensional stage-props meant to be seen at a specific angle.

I had a *really* embarrassing experience when I let one of my players, a neophyte GM run a campaign. I mentioned this a while back on another thread...

Basically I was playing and he was doing *exactly* what you were doing: describing a bunch of stuff that seemed curious to me as a player. He described a trading post in a place where by all logic a trading post shouldn't exist. And we were dealing with a "crafty" guild of thieves and so I was on high-alert. So he described all these porters loading crates in and out of this warehouse. We were in the middle of nowhere - why is there a warehouse here? What could they be loading? So I went into the warehouse and took a look around and the GM says it's filled with crates. The GM started to get nervous as I went to a crate when no one was looking - and asked "What's in the crate?"

The GM said "Uhh... nothing is in the crate."
I'm like.... 'whaaaaat'? Nothing is in the crate?!?!? I go check another crate! I pry it open with my short-sword!"
"Nothing is in that crate either."
"Nothing?!?! I go to another crate! I open it!"
"There's nothing in that crate either. Look there's nothing in any of the crates. There's nothing in the other warehouse either!"

Then I start freaking out - because suddenly I start thinking the Thieves Guild has set up a trap for us and built this fake-outpost to get us. I'm telling the rest of the group to get ready because /Ackbar Voice "IT'S A TRAP!!!"

When in reality - the noob GM was just putting in a setpiece with no intention of us doing anything there and I put him on the spot the moment I said "What's in the crate?" He simply couldn't improv enough to tell me what the fuck is in a random crate (which is why for those that aren't good at improv - random tables RULE!)

To this day in my group "What's the in crate" is a meme for us. I even meta-wink at it in my games when I describe a "warehouse full of crates." No one tries to open them because they know damn well I can tell you what's in every fucking crate within a 1000-miles of their position. (I'm good at improv).

But the point is - your players ideas of the situation are almost *always* better/more important than yours as a GM. Your job is to convey as much clarity as possible and let their imaginations do the heavy lifting. Not your prose. Plus the ability to let your PC's go off-roading from your script is the real call to adventure you're looking for. The unknown is always more thrilling than the proscribed "thrill-ride" that ultimately is predictable.

I get it but honestly only a dolt woukd present something and not be able to expound on it if the players took an interest. I realize descriptive detail has this potential and am always,prepared. But I don't have to plan it that way.

Quote from: tenbones;937338I had a *really* embarrassing experience when I let one of my players, a neophyte GM run a campaign. I mentioned this a while back on another thread...

Basically I was playing and he was doing *exactly* what you were doing: describing a bunch of stuff that seemed curious to me as a player. He described a trading post in a place where by all logic a trading post shouldn't exist. And we were dealing with a "crafty" guild of thieves and so I was on high-alert. So he described all these porters loading crates in and out of this warehouse. We were in the middle of nowhere - why is there a warehouse here? What could they be loading? So I went into the warehouse and took a look around and the GM says it's filled with crates. The GM started to get nervous as I went to a crate when no one was looking - and asked "What's in the crate?"

The GM said "Uhh... nothing is in the crate."
I'm like.... 'whaaaaat'? Nothing is in the crate?!?!? I go check another crate! I pry it open with my short-sword!"
"Nothing is in that crate either."
"Nothing?!?! I go to another crate! I open it!"
"There's nothing in that crate either. Look there's nothing in any of the crates. There's nothing in the other warehouse either!"

Then I start freaking out - because suddenly I start thinking the Thieves Guild has set up a trap for us and built this fake-outpost to get us. I'm telling the rest of the group to get ready because /Ackbar Voice "IT'S A TRAP!!!"

Man... the minute you said, "It's a TRAP," you gave him the hook. He coulda sprang it right there and dove into it. Of course then you get into why the whole 'fake warehouse,' but, still...your player gives you a direction to fix your fuckup, that's honey for the bear, man!:-)

I didn't get the impression that Rove's players weren't supposed to interact with the scenes that he described They read like set of things too interact interact and rp with both physically and moodwise. colorful and interesting in a way "Its the morning, the market is crowded and noisy." (to go the other extreme) wouldn't be. The only nit I'd pick is that they were a bit generic but they were just improvised examples.

Quote from: Nexus;937345I didn't get the impression that Rove's players weren't supposed to interact with the scenes that he described They read like set of things too interact interact and rp with both physically and moodwise. colorful and interesting in a way "Its the morning, the market is crowded and noisy." (to go the other extreme) wouldn't be. The only nit I'd pick is that they were a bit generic but they were just improvised examples.

That was my impression as well. A fraction too overdone but these arent just there as immutable constants. But they also arent "plot relevant". Which is what I really like.

The vendor is juggling. Why? Go ask them! Were they a former circus or stage act? Or a relative who they picked it up from. Maybe they are a failed perfomer but still practice some tricks. Maybe they are an assassin whos waiting for a target they have researched and know likes tricks like this and one of those apples is laced with a deadly poison that will kill the victim a few hours later.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937342Some of us are looking for theatrical drama, some I suppose a more mundane/real experience.

Yes, if "mundane" is being a gambler and gunfighter in 1874 New Mexico, or a swashbuckling actor in 1626 Marseille, or captain of an interstellar free trader in Ley Sector in 1103 of the Third Imperium.

Which isn't really very mundane at all, when you think about it.

For someone who prides himself on his prose, Grover, you sure have a way of putting your foot in your mouth a lot.

Quote from: cranebump;937238Well, if you're going to look for advice around here, you have to pay less attention to the gift wrapping, which can be loud, crude, obnoxious, and barely taped up.:-) Fuck it, DON'T ask for advice here. Talk about set in your ways--you are not alone (look at our responses).

Yeah, this is very true. For all the yelling of 'There's NO ONE TRUE WAY', there's a lot of people here to claim their experience is superiour.  Hell, the entire OSR movement is pretty much it, by claiming the 'newer' versions of D&D being wrong, edition warring is 'One True Wayism' dialed up to broken, it's everywhere in this forum.  Sometimes, it's a wonder why anyone actually gets long here.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;937352Yes, if "mundane" is being a gambler and gunfighter in 1874 New Mexico, or a swashbuckling actor in 1626 Marseille, or captain of an interstellar free trader in Ley Sector in 1103 of the Third Imperium.

Which isn't really very mundane at all, when you think about it.

For someone who prides himself on his prose, Grover, you sure have a way of putting your foot in your mouth a lot.

No pride at all, and yes I can see how mundane could be read as a negative. I didn't mean to imply that.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937356No pride at all, and yes I can see how mundane could be read as a negative. I didn't mean to imply that.

I had actually forgotten that mundane also means dull. I've always used it in the context of things which are not arcane nor divine nor cosmic.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937230I enjoy open debate but the tact less worms that just bitch, moan and badmouth just piss me off.

Please don't take it out on the hostages! Or the teddy bears!

Quote from: rgrove0172;937251One thing you are absolutely right about is my getting a thicker skin.

Don't wear the hostages! Leave the lotion in the basket!

Quote from: rgrove0172;937256Ive been pretty picky about who was invited to games and perhaps that's been the secret or maybe its been just blind luck but my players have generally been on the same page as me when it comes to many of the elements of GM style I have raised here.

THIS is a really good thing.

You should count yourself lucky and focus your energies on getting more players who fit in with your team.

Quote from: Ashakyre;937307You walk into a thread. It's a shit show.

Kudos. That was funny.

Quote from: tenbones;937338I'm not going to re-write your flavor text.

Wimp!

Quote from: tenbones;937338The GM said "Uhh... nothing is in the crate."
I'm like.... 'whaaaaat'? Nothing is in the crate?!?!? I go check another crate! I pry it open with my short-sword!"
"Nothing is in that crate either."
"Nothing?!?! I go to another crate! I open it!"
"There's nothing in that crate either. Look there's nothing in any of the crates. There's nothing in the other warehouse either!"

That is an awesome story!! I am absolutely stealing this idea. Extremely cool trap setup.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937342Some of us are looking for theatrical drama, some I suppose a more mundane/real experience. Should have established that at the beginning and avoided a lot of consternation.

Agreed.

There are players who enjoy boxed text. The entire module business and the Living Campaigns are all about GMs diligently reading words out of boxes and those are extremely popular with many, many gamers.

One of the greatest compliments to my GMing was when a player, who is a cop IRL, told me that the way I describe the streets of 2080 Manhattan and the people you encounter there during patrol is almost exactly like what he encounters during his shifts, and the cops were a lot like some of his colleagues.
Except with slightly less crazies during the night shifts, but I guess my random tables just didn't assume enough of those, or my dice were acting out;).

Also, I must start a "list of things to add to the next game I Referee", because the warehouse with empty crates totally should be included:D!

Quote from: rgrove0172;937356No pride at all, and yes I can see how mundane could be read as a negative. I didn't mean to imply that.

Some people on this thread seem determined to read everything you say as uncharitably as possible.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937231You are suspecting wrong. I'm asking questions to expand my admittedly narrow GM experience base, having done things a certain way for many years. I want to hear why others do what they do, I don't particularly need to hear how badly my way sucks or why I am a troll for presenting it.

Okay, but you also know your audience. Its very clear by now that you prefer a narrative approach to gaming. I'm not going to say there's anything wrong with that, but its basically counter to this board's character. The posters responding to you here, on the whole, are not interested in (or in some cases generally antagonistic towards) this style of play. So is it that you actually want to give up your style of GMing and try an immersive/"world in motion" approach? Because I'm not seeing that as entirely likely. It runs counter to your answers to the questions I asked in the previous thread, and in general you seem to regard advice that comes from the WIM PoV as a burden. I'm not saying several of the responses your getting aren't hostile, but I also cannot see you not realizing that you are courting that at this point. You know, frex, Vulmea and Gronan's playstyles and what little regard they hold for other playstyles (granted, largely exaggerated no doubt for comedic effect), but if you arent intent on adopting their approach, why are you conversing with them at all? And to get back to knowing your audience, you must understand, regardless of the disparate levels of animosity, Vulmea and Gronan's tastes in regards to gaming are indicative of the general population of therpgsite as a whole. I wouldn't bother starting a thread on this site about playing Sorensen's The Farm, anymore than I'd bother going to the 9th Age forums to start a conversation on the finer points of playing Age of Sigmar unless I was just trolling, (which to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't put it past me - I enjoy a good game of Devil's Advocate as much as any 4chantard).

So specifically in regards to this forum, you could phrase your question-based threads to specifically court advice on the narrative style of GMing you prefer,  you could couch them in terms that specifically engenders advice in regards to how to most effectively approach things from a "World-in-Motion" perspective, but as it is, it seems like you don't know what you want

Quote from: Nexus;937378Some people on this thread seem determined to read everything you say as uncharitably as possible.

Oh, Nexus, please.

Grover repeatedly frames his posts with false dichotomies misrepresenting or distorting differing opinions. Here're two quick examples.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936334I was told by some guy that GMs were story tellers, and I believed him. Its the very reason I wanted to GM in the first place. Without it, your just a referee and a match maker (setting up crap for thee players to fuck up). No thanks.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935478A good GM is never surprised. Its his world and its his job to provide the surprises, not be taken by them.

There are many more. And I'm far from the only person to notice.

Quote from: Omega;937288Then stop backhanding other peoples styles in just about every thread you start? Really. You did in this one, the one before, the one before that and so on. Sometimes again later in the thread. Not to mention the deliberate baiting thats creeped into alot of your posts which isnt helping matters at all. You are conditioning people to take a defensive or negative stance because you slip in an attack either at the start or later in. And you do that even to the people who agree with some point or are openly discussing the idea rather than knee-jerk reactions.

It's why I think Grover is a troll intent on creating shitstorms, not a gamer interested in discussion. It's just too coincidental that this gamer who claims to be so insular in his gaming group and habits shits out a refereeing advice quote from Torchbearer on this forum, and that he so often manages to distort the views of others in such specific ways. A couple of times can be an accident, but repeated passive-aggressive swipes? I don't buy it.

I don't think Grover posts in good faith, but whatever - my opinion and $5 will get you a frappachino, and no one should give a wet fart what I think about anything anyway. If it's not intentional, then it's an inadvertent verbal tic by which he is ill-served. Either way, he's not a 'victim,' Nexus. You and I've gone back and forth on this topic without it devolving into ratfucking one other in the ear - that Grover produces such a strong response is a function of what he posts.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;937387Oh, Nexus, please.

Grover repeatedly frames his posts with false dichotomies misrepresenting or distorting differing opinions. Here're two quick examples.

Says the man thatr uses internet images and even claimed a troll image from the old David The Gnome stories to make a 'point' about what he is, which frankly, other than spewing some hard core One True Wayism that I'm sure makes Gronan blush in pleasure, I often have no idea what point you're making other than to well, troll people.

You may even be right about Grove, but at this point, you have less credibility than he does.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;937388Says the man thatr uses internet images and even claimed a troll image from the old David The Gnome stories to make a 'point' about what he is, which frankly, other than spewing some hard core One True Wayism that I'm sure makes Gronan blush in pleasure, I often have no idea what point you're making other than to well, troll people.

You may even be right about Grove, but at this point, you have less credibility than he does.

Yeah and its not like he's the only one. Personally,  I don't think Grove is a Troll of any sort but maybe naive about the board community on the rpgsite.

Quote from: Nexus;937390Yeah and its not like he's the only one. Personally,  I don't think Grove is a Troll of any sort but maybe naive about the board community on the rpgsite.

I expected a diverse group as found in other forums. Had I known there was such a leaning toward styles counter to my own I may have thought twice about bringing it up.

Quote from: Old One Eye;937228My notes for the market would be something like:

Leather worker:  trying to get coalition of merchants to fight thieves guild extortion
Apple vendor:  front for thieves guild.
Baker:  thieves guild often exhorts into baking poisonous pies

I suggest spending prep on content for the players to interact with and let flavor text be less than perfect at the table.

Depends on a lot of things.  There are small villages with little fairs all over the place, and many of them are full of perfectly ordinary stuff.

Now, if you've gone to the Champagne Fair, that's different.  But some stuff is just stuff.  Not every plowhorse is Beucephalus in disguise.

Quote from: CRKrueger;937285That's one of the things about the other morning description, it's a little off as well.  I think the disconnect is that Grove just comes up with these and they're not meant to give any real information.

That's a big part of it.  In another thread he said he wants "The knight is riding an Andalusian" even though he has no idea what an Andalusian is.  That means I could say "He's riding an Omaneska, a breed of fast horse derived from the Arabian and bred in Oman."

Even though it's total bullshit that I just pulled out of my ass this very second.  There is no such thing.  To somebody with my deep seated horror of using words incorrectly, the notion of doing that is like the dentist office scene in Marathon Man.

Also, over the 44 years and hundreds of people I've gamed with, I've found the old adage "leave 'em wanting more" is the best advice.  Make the descriptions concise and if the players want more, they'll ask.

Quote from: Ashakyre;937307You walk into a thread. It's a shit show.

Surveying the scene from top to bottom you observe posters arguing with each other trivially pointless details. You try to make sense of their ramblings, but your eyes glaze over with boredom. It seems the argument has been going on for quite some time, but you can no longer tell what they're talking about. At moments it seems the posters are polite with each other, almost cordial, but all that does is set up a new round of bickering instead of letting the discussion die a natural death.

There doesn't seem to be anything of value here, but you find it hard to pull yourself away, almost like a mysterious force is drawing you into the abyss...

"I post archers to cover all the exits and set the thread on fire."

Quote from: rgrove0172;937256This thread for example - most, if not all, of my players have been avid readers of fiction and tend to dig into books related to the game we are about to embark on or are already enjoying. When we come to the table we more or less expect a similar experience to what we have been reading, complete with overly used adjectives and tediously descriptive prose.

All of my players over 44 years have been avid readers of fiction.

However, we avoid authors who use "overly used adjectives and tediously descriptive prose."  We prefer authors who can actually write.

"Writing" is not the same as "overwriting."

Quote from: Black Vulmea;937352Yes, if "mundane" is being a gambler and gunfighter in 1874 New Mexico, or a swashbuckling actor in 1626 Marseille, or captain of an interstellar free trader in Ley Sector in 1103 of the Third Imperium.

Which isn't really very mundane at all, when you think about it.

For someone who prides himself on his prose, Grover, you sure have a way of putting your foot in your mouth a lot.

Ho hum, here's the mundane Jedi knight leaping 40 mundane feet across a mundane chasm in a mundane Trade Federation cruiser to ignite his mundane lightsaber and lay into some mundane battle droids...

And after all this time, he still uses that kind of terminology, and still wonders why people still take the piss out of him in fifty five gallon drums.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;937398Now, if you've gone to the Champagne Fair, that's different.

That's really neat. I just spent the last 15 minutes reading up on that, which is a piece of history I was not aware of. There is some good inspiration there that can be included in a fantasy economy. It's interesting how the Black Death and end of the Medieval Warm Period may have affected it's decline. I hadn't considered a plague or pandemic before. That would be awesome in a low magic setting.

Quote from: Tristram Evans;937383Okay, but you also know your audience. Its very clear by now that you prefer a narrative approach to gaming. I'm not going to say there's anything wrong with that, but its basically counter to this board's character. The posters responding to you here, on the whole, are not interested in (or in some cases generally antagonistic towards) this style of play. So is it that you actually want to give up your style of GMing and try an immersive/"world in motion" approach? Because I'm not seeing that as entirely likely. It runs counter to your answers to the questions I asked in the previous thread, and in general you seem to regard advice that comes from the WIM PoV as a burden. I'm not saying several of the responses your getting aren't hostile, but I also cannot see you not realizing that you are courting that at this point. You know, frex, Vulmea and Gronan's playstyles and what little regard they hold for other playstyles (granted, largely exaggerated no doubt for comedic effect), but if you arent intent on adopting their approach, why are you conversing with them at all? And to get back to knowing your audience, you must understand, regardless of the disparate levels of animosity, Vulmea and Gronan's tastes in regards to gaming are indicative of the general population of therpgsite as a whole. I wouldn't bother starting a thread on this site about playing Sorensen's The Farm, anymore than I'd bother going to the 9th Age forums to start a conversation on the finer points of playing Age of Sigmar unless I was just trolling, (which to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't put it past me - I enjoy a good game of Devil's Advocate as much as any 4chantard).

So specifically in regards to this forum, you could phrase your question-based threads to specifically court advice on the narrative style of GMing you prefer,  you could couch them in terms that specifically engenders advice in regards to how to most effectively approach things from a "World-in-Motion" perspective, but as it is, it seems like you don't know what you want

Another thing you have GOT to pay attention to is BV's point in post 90; that despite assertions to the contrary, Rgrove starts using very loaded language at or near the beginning of every one of these threads.  There is a STRONG undercurrent of "I am oh so NARTISTIC compared to you barbarians," for example his yodel about "my players and I are all avid readers of fiction," which 99 out of 100 random people would read as an assertion of difference... in other words, "the rest of you are not."  Nobody says "My players and I are all oxygen breathing carbon based life forms."

Crom's hairy nutsack, BV has quoted Dumas in some of his posts here, people quote Shakespeare, Howard, Lieber, Tolkien, Hemingway... saying "my players and I are all avid readers of fiction" at BEST rates "Along with the entire rest of this fucking forum, Cupcake."  But after enough examples of this sort of thing, one stops employing the benefit of the doubt.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937392I expected a diverse group as found in other forums. Had I known there was such a leaning toward styles counter to my own I may have thought twice about bringing it up.

Part of the problem was your first post here which started with a massive misunderstanding by members here, including myself. And once some of us caught on we noted as much that as long as the players are on board the style you use is perfectly fine. But later posts have been either attempts to validate your style with some of the wonkiest cherry picking of "facts" that it just begs to be dissected. Or the aforementioned backhanding which undermines your valid points and lessens the chance anyones going to answer civilly.

If youd started this thread alone without the baiting it might not have devolved so fast. Sure a few would still have objected intensely. But probably not with as much vitrol (aside from the resident trolls).

As long as your players want that sort of intense detail and storytelling style rather than RPG style then rock on.

Do you go into as much detail with the NPCs? I assume yes? Every NPC? Or just the ones the players focus on?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;937399Also, over the 44 years and hundreds of people I've gamed with, I've found the old adage "leave 'em wanting more" is the best advice.  Make the descriptions concise and if the players want more, they'll ask.

Yes. The Q&A style I mentioned before.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;937387It's why I think Grover is a troll intent on creating shitstorms, not a gamer interested in discussion.

Maybe he's the Big Purple's Troll Master, but I'm not getting that vibe.

Either way, his threads have sparked some good discussions so I'm hoping he sticks around.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;937398Depends on a lot of things.  There are small villages with little fairs all over the place, and many of them are full of perfectly ordinary stuff.

Now, if you've gone to the Champagne Fair, that's different.  But some stuff is just stuff.  Not every plowhorse is Beucephalus in disguise.

True, but if you're taking the time to make me notice said plowhorse, by, say, having it juggle or scream how it has the best wares, then I feel like you want me to notice it, so I might be more apt to check it out.

Grove does have a style one could call "passive aggressive strawmanning" when challenged.  It's in various degrees of subtlety, but the construct runs something like this...(exaggerated for effect).

"Well gee willickers, I always thought the role of the GM was to be something other than a knuckle dragging ape.  My apologies if that isn't what's done these days."

He doesn't usually defend himself without misrepresenting the opposing argument as well as tossing a little jab in there for good measure and giving himself plausible deniability.  It's very...Victorian.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;937401All of my players over 44 years have been avid readers of fiction.

However, we avoid authors who use "overly used adjectives and tediously descriptive prose."  We prefer authors who can actually write.

"Writing" is not the same as "overwriting."

Ok, but there are tons of over written books out there and more published every day. Obviously there is a market for them. Some of us, a lot of us, do like the style. It's understandable we emulate it at times around our tables. Cussler comes to mind, tremendously successful writer but agreeably an overwriter.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;937402Ho hum, here's the mundane Jedi knight leaping 40 mundane feet across a mundane chasm in a mundane Trade Federation cruiser to ignite his mundane lightsaber and lay into some mundane battle droids...

And after all this time, he still uses that kind of terminology, and still wonders why people still take the piss out of him in fifty five gallon drums.

Think we already discussed the term has different meanings and I apologized for its use. Guess you missed that.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;937406Another thing you have GOT to pay attention to is BV's point in post 90; that despite assertions to the contrary, Rgrove starts using very loaded language at or near the beginning of every one of these threads.  There is a STRONG undercurrent of "I am oh so NARTISTIC compared to you barbarians," for example his yodel about "my players and I are all avid readers of fiction," which 99 out of 100 random people would read as an assertion of difference... in other words, "the rest of you are not."  Nobody says "My players and I are all oxygen breathing carbon based life forms."

Crom's hairy nutsack, BV has quoted Dumas in some of his posts here, people quote Shakespeare, Howard, Lieber, Tolkien, Hemingway... saying "my players and I are all avid readers of fiction" at BEST rates "Along with the entire rest of this fucking forum, Cupcake."  But after enough examples of this sort of thing, one stops employing the benefit of the doubt.

I can't really help what someone asserts. I said my players are readers, they are. Didn't suggest anything bout the reading habits of other members. You elect to read into the statement then accuse me of starting an argument? Geeze, the moderators were a nuisance on the purple site but some of you guys are so sensitive its,rediculous. Do I have to run every phrase through a filter to keep from hurting your feelings?

Quote from: rgrove0172;937456Ok, but there are tons of over written books out there and more published every day. Obviously there is a market for them. Some of us, a lot of us, do like the style. It's understandable we emulate it at times around our tables. Cussler comes to mind, tremendously successful writer but agreeably an overwriter.

Also some of the terms being thrown around as objective are subjective evaluations. Whether something is overwritten. sparse or well written depends, at least to some extent, on the reader.

Quote from: Nexus;937462Also some of the terms being thrown around as objective are subjective evaluations. Whether something is overwritten. sparse or well written depends, at least to some extent, on the reader.

I think a good rule of thumb on any sort of writing is, "Am I confused by anything?" If I am, then something is wrong with the writing.

Tangent: I've attended all sorts of writers groups where the answer to the above is "Yes, I'm confused by ____," after which the damned writer invariably always starts to explain what he MEANT to say, at which point, I respond, "Then that's what you SHOULD have said." In short, don't blame the reader for failing to grasp your grand opus. If you overdid it, or left too many blanks to make a logical, deductive leap, it's your fault, not the audience.

Quote from: Omega;937416Part of the problem was your first post here which started with a massive misunderstanding by members here, including myself. And once some of us caught on we noted as much that as long as the players are on board the style you use is perfectly fine. But later posts have been either attempts to validate your style with some of the wonkiest cherry picking of "facts" that it just begs to be dissected. Or the aforementioned backhanding which undermines your valid points and lessens the chance anyones going to answer civilly.

If youd started this thread alone without the baiting it might not have devolved so fast. Sure a few would still have objected intensely. But probably not with as much vitrol (aside from the resident trolls).

As long as your players want that sort of intense detail and storytelling style rather than RPG style then rock on.

Do you go into as much detail with the NPCs? I assume yes? Every NPC? Or just the ones the players focus on?

It depends of course. Sometimes a bit of detail is just color with NPCs as well, such as describing the customers at a tavern. (Im recalling Robert E. Howard doing that when describing various individuals - ie. A hook-nosed Shemite with a buxom Brythunian lass over his knee in one corner while a brawny Gunderman leans on his bow near the fire pit.) If you only describe the important NPCs you are kind of herding, something preached against here at length and even I try not to take part in regularly.

Quote from: cranebump;937453True, but if you're taking the time to make me notice said plowhorse, by, say, having it juggle or scream how it has the best wares, then I feel like you want me to notice it, so I might be more apt to check it out.

I guess I can see this if your not accustomed to you GM presenting his world this way. If a more... dammit let me get the right word here so I don't offend anybody, um.. direct and minimalist description is what your used to and suddenly the GM spends a full minute on something.. well Yeah, that's going to draw your attention. If the GM always describes things that way though, its not as obvious.

Quote from: Nexus;937462Also some of the terms being thrown around as objective are subjective evaluations. Whether something is overwritten. sparse or well written depends, at least to some extent, on the reader.

One man's overwriting is another's warm and engaging prose. Different strokes. There is bad writing. But too often, on the internet, people confuse subjective things like style with a measure of quality. If all writers followed the majority of writing advice that pops up in my Facebook feed, books would suck IMO.

Quote from: Nexus;937462Also some of the terms being thrown around as objective are subjective evaluations. Whether something is overwritten. sparse or well written depends, at least to some extent, on the reader.

Not it would it would seem to some that declare it outrightly, even on a hastily scribed paragraph written as a vague example only.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;937387Oh, Nexus, please.

Grover repeatedly frames his posts with false dichotomies misrepresenting or distorting differing opinions. Here're two quick examples.


There are many more. And I'm far from the only person to notice.


It's why I think Grover is a troll intent on creating shitstorms, not a gamer interested in discussion. It's just too coincidental that this gamer who claims to be so insular in his gaming group and habits shits out a refereeing advice quote from Torchbearer on this forum, and that he so often manages to distort the views of others in such specific ways. A couple of times can be an accident, but repeated passive-aggressive swipes? I don't buy it.

I don't think Grover posts in good faith, but whatever - my opinion and $5 will get you a frappachino, and no one should give a wet fart what I think about anything anyway. If it's not intentional, then it's an inadvertent verbal tic by which he is ill-served. Either way, he's not a 'victim,' Nexus. You and I've gone back and forth on this topic without it devolving into ratfucking one other in the ear - that Grover produces such a strong response is a function of what he posts.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;937406Another thing you have GOT to pay attention to is BV's point in post 90; that despite assertions to the contrary, Rgrove starts using very loaded language at or near the beginning of every one of these threads.  There is a STRONG undercurrent of "I am oh so NARTISTIC compared to you barbarians," for example his yodel about "my players and I are all avid readers of fiction," which 99 out of 100 random people would read as an assertion of difference... in other words, "the rest of you are not."  Nobody says "My players and I are all oxygen breathing carbon based life forms."

Crom's hairy nutsack, BV has quoted Dumas in some of his posts here, people quote Shakespeare, Howard, Lieber, Tolkien, Hemingway... saying "my players and I are all avid readers of fiction" at BEST rates "Along with the entire rest of this fucking forum, Cupcake."  But after enough examples of this sort of thing, one stops employing the benefit of the doubt.

Quote from: Omega;937416Part of the problem was your first post here which started with a massive misunderstanding by members here, including myself. And once some of us caught on we noted as much that as long as the players are on board the style you use is perfectly fine. But later posts have been either attempts to validate your style with some of the wonkiest cherry picking of "facts" that it just begs to be dissected. Or the aforementioned backhanding which undermines your valid points and lessens the chance anyones going to answer civilly.

If youd started this thread alone without the baiting it might not have devolved so fast. Sure a few would still have objected intensely. But probably not with as much vitrol (aside from the resident trolls).

As long as your players want that sort of intense detail and storytelling style rather than RPG style then rock on.

Do you go into as much detail with the NPCs? I assume yes? Every NPC? Or just the ones the players focus on?

Quote from: CRKrueger;937455Grove does have a style one could call "passive aggressive strawmanning" when challenged.  It's in various degrees of subtlety, but the construct runs something like this...(exaggerated for effect).

"Well gee willickers, I always thought the role of the GM was to be something other than a knuckle dragging ape.  My apologies if that isn't what's done these days."

He doesn't usually defend himself without misrepresenting the opposing argument as well as tossing a little jab in there for good measure and giving himself plausible deniability.  It's very...Victorian.

Yeah, I feel pretty much the same way about his "writing style". I don't like "deniable put-downs" on people that don't think like you. If you've got to say something, go ahead and say it. Heavens know I'm not hesitating to call Rgrove's style cheating when I feel it is...at least that's fine on this forum:D!
But instead he posts something we all read as veiled insults towards our styles, and then asks "why are you getting defensive, did you read something offensive?"
Sure we did - you wrote it! Oh, but he's amazed, amazed I'm telling you, that someone might misconstrue his meaning in such a way...
"Victorian" is a good way to put it, yes.

In one of his first threads, I went almost full-bore on Rgrove until he toned that down. Of course, I relented, too.
Then he picked it up again. Since then, I've been preparing for a good dressing down of his threads...for which I don't have the time at the moment. But holidays are approaching quickly.
And I'm cooking pop-corn:cool:.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937456Ok, but there are tons of over written books out there and more published every day. Obviously there is a market for them. Some of us, a lot of us, do like the style. It's understandable we emulate it at times around our tables. Cussler comes to mind, tremendously successful writer but agreeably an overwriter.

"90 % of everything is crud". That applies to books published, too.
Also: Ernest Hemingway wrote a short story in six words, that has more emotional impact (on normal people at least) than all of your examples on this forum, combined. Google it if you don't know it. Try to beat it in a whole paragraph, no matter what you're writing about...
Unless you can, and I've never seen a living* writer that could, consider the merits of paring down.
Or don't, because a GM is a writer who only has to please the audience around his table. But when talking about writing styles in general, that's the advice you get.

*Some dead ones manage to equal or best it, inadvertently.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937458I can't really help what someone asserts. I said my players are readers, they are. Didn't suggest anything bout the reading habits of other members. You elect to read into the statement then accuse me of starting an argument? Geeze, the moderators were a nuisance on the purple site but some of you guys are so sensitive its,rediculous. Do I have to run every phrase through a filter to keep from hurting your feelings?

When you're writing on a forum, you're a writer...even though you're closer to a journalist, that's still writing.
Ask anyone who works in one of those fields*: If the audience misunderstands you, it's your fault. There's no "electing" to misunderstand you. You can apologize if that's not what you meant, and try to avoid it.
But, like CRK, I believe it's the writing style you have internalised.

*Myself included, so you already have an opinion.

Quote from: Nexus;937462Also some of the terms being thrown around as objective are subjective evaluations. Whether something is overwritten. sparse or well written depends, at least to some extent, on the reader.

No, whether the reader notices depends on the reader. Whether the reader likes overwritten stuff, depends on the reader and what he or she has consumed in written form.
Whether something is overwritten has rather objective criteria. You can Google them yourself;).

Quote from: cranebump;937476I think a good rule of thumb on any sort of writing is, "Am I confused by anything?" If I am, then is wrong with the writing.

Tangent: I've attended all sorts of writers groups where the answer to the above is "Yes, I'm confused by ____," after which the damned writer invariably always starts to explain what he MEANT to say, at which point, I respond, "Then that's what you SHOULD have said." In short, don't blame the reader for failing to grasp your grand opus. If you overdid it, or left too many blanks to make a logical, deductive leap, it's your fault, not the audience.

Yes:).

Quote from: rgrove0172;937482Not it would it would seem to some that declare it outrightly, even on a hastily scribed paragraph written as a vague example only.

Yes, this forum has a bad tendency to do that on examples.
It's why I've decided to use only examples from the Actual Plays already written on my blog;). I'm not saying you should do the same, but you could consider it.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;937387my opinion and $5 will get you a frappachino, and no one should give a wet fart what I think about anything anyway.

My morning coffee is ruined. I'll have to make the proper sacrifices at the local chapter of the Cult of the Brown Serpent this afternoon.

Quote from: AsenRG;937494Yeah, I feel pretty much the same way about his "writing style". I don't like "deniable put-downs" on people that don't think like you. If you've got to say something, go ahead and say it. Heavens know I'm not hesitating to call Rgrove's style cheating when I feel it is...at least that's fine on this forum:D!
But instead he posts something we all read as veiled insults towards our styles, and then asks "why are you getting defensive, did you read something offensive?"
Sure we did - you wrote it! Oh, but he's amazed, amazed I'm telling you, that someone might misconstrue his meaning in such a way...
"Victorian" is a good way to put it, yes.

In one of his first threads, I went almost full-bore on Rgrove until he toned that down. Of course, I relented, too.
Then he picked it up again. Since then, I've been preparing for a good dressing down of his threads...for which I don't have the time at the moment. But holidays are approaching quickly.
And I'm cooking pop-corn:cool:.


"90 % of everything is crud". That applies to books published, too.
Also: Ernest Hemingway wrote a short story in six words, that has more emotional impact (on normal people at least) than all of your examples on this forum, combined. Google it if you don't know it. Try to beat it in a whole paragraph, no matter what you're writing about...
Unless you can, and I've never seen a living* writer that could, consider the merits of paring down.
Or don't, because a GM is a writer who only has to please the audience around his table. But when talking about writing styles in general, that's the advice you get.

*Some dead ones manage to equal or best it, inadvertently.


When you're writing on a forum, you're a writer...even though you're closer to a journalist, that's still writing.
Ask anyone who works in one of those fields*: If the audience misunderstands you, it's your fault. There's no "electing" to misunderstand you. You can apologize if that's not what you meant, and try to avoid it.
But, like CRK, I believe it's the writing style you have internalised.

*Myself included, so you already have an opinion.

No, whether the reader notices depends on the reader. Whether the reader likes overwritten stuff, depends on the reader and what he or she has consumed in written form.
Whether something is overwritten has rather objective criteria. You can Google them yourself;).


Yes:).


Yes, this forum has a bad tendency to do that on examples.
It's why I've decided to use only examples from the Actual Plays already written on my blog;). I'm not saying you should do the same, but you could consider it.

It has lots of bad tendencies, like spending a lot of time hashing over one member's ability or inability to effeciently explain himself on the forum when the topic is the use of descriptors while GMing.

Honestly I read through the various posts and there is plenty of ego to go around and yet Im heralded as a Victorian prude. Just look at the post above.
I]We read his posts as veiled insults, Im preparing to dress down his threads, 90% of everything is crud, this or that is absolutely objective...[/I]

No opinion or ego voiced there, no sirreeee. None at all.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;937388. . . at this point, you have less credibility than he does.

. . . I had credibility?

Quote from: tenbones;937495My morning coffee is ruined.

My sincere apologies, O Bony One.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937498It has lots of bad tendencies, like spending a lot of time hashing over one member's ability or inability to effeciently explain himself on the forum when the topic is the use of descriptors while GMing.

Honestly I read through the various posts and there is plenty of ego to go around and yet Im heralded as a Victorian prude. Just look at the post above.
I]We read his posts as veiled insults, Im preparing to dress down his threads, 90% of everything is crud, this or that is absolutely objective...[/I]

No opinion or ego voiced there, no sirreeee. None at all.

I never claimed I'm ego-less or opinion-less, quite the opposite:). I'm stating my opinions clearly enough, and you're free to debate any and all of them, unless I tell you it's not even up for debate.
Also, stop playing at misunderstanding - you're not being labeled as Victorian for having an opinion or ego, but for duplicity of speech;)!

Quote from: rgrove0172;937498It has lots of bad tendencies, like spending a lot of time hashing over one member's ability or inability to effeciently explain himself on the forum when the topic is the use of descriptors while GMing.

Honestly I read through the various posts and there is plenty of ego to go around and yet Im heralded as a Victorian prude. Just look at the post above.
I]We read his posts as veiled insults, Im preparing to dress down his threads, 90% of everything is crud, this or that is absolutely objective...[/I]

No opinion or ego voiced there, no sirreeee. None at all.

If I had a dime for every post here that irked me, I'd be a wealthy man. My advice is ignore the posts you don't like or can't respond to constructively. Or at the every least, respond but don't derail your own thread by focusing endlessly on posts you dislike. If you have an issue with the forum itself, maybe take it to the help desk. Right now this is just becoming a meta-discussion about the quality of posts and posters in the thread, rather than the topic you originally raised.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937458I can't really help what someone asserts. I said my players are readers, they are. Didn't suggest anything bout the reading habits of other members. You elect to read into the statement then accuse me of starting an argument? Geeze, the moderators were a nuisance on the purple site but some of you guys are so sensitive its,rediculous. Do I have to run every phrase through a filter to keep from hurting your feelings?

Why yes, yes they here love them some hurt feelings.  They love it even more when they respond to a post, make up an assertion, say it was you, then shit all over it.  That around here will get 20-40 posts all about how swiney you are about something you didn't even say.  Around here they have no desire for discussion, they want agreement.  If you want real frothing at the mouth hatred just bring up Mother May I.   It is comical quick.

Well, the topic he did raise was answered, mostly. The issue is he didn't like the answers and claims we're overanalyzing his example, which is what he gave us to work with:).

Rgrove, may I suggest taping yourself during next session and then cutting out a couple of 30-seconds descriptions (with or without the players' clarifying questions, your call) and uploading them on youtube for us to hear;)?

Quote from: Sommerjon;937512they...They...they...they...they... Mother May I. Ah.

The rebellious outsider who isn't part of 'them' (with 1500 posts).

Do me a favour mate, you're a one-line joke these days, so i think you've lost the right to any kind of high ground that you think you might be inhabiting. Your moral high-ground is a mole-hill - in a ditch.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937458I can't really help what someone asserts. I said my players are readers, they are. Didn't suggest anything bout the reading habits of other members. You elect to read into the statement then accuse me of starting an argument? Geeze, the moderators were a nuisance on the purple site but some of you guys are so sensitive its,rediculous. Do I have to run every phrase through a filter to keep from hurting your feelings?

If one person says something about your self presentation, ignore them.
If several people say essentially the same thing, you need to evaluate your style of self presentation.

I've said this before in the other thread.  Guess you missed that.

Quote from: AsenRG;937514Well, the topic he did raise was answered, mostly. The issue is he didn't like the answers and claims we're overanalyzing his example, which is what he gave us to work with:).

And for those of us who have seen this song-and-dance performed multiple times before, it's starting to wear thin.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]618[/ATTACH]

I appreciate rgrove's ability to start threads on rpg topics - it generates discussion and occasionally some useful tips.

I don't read his actual posts anymore, however, since beyond the OP, the posts can all be summed up either with either "well, we are just looking for something a bit better than the average game group" or "How did I offend? I wasn't implying that my game/players are better than you."

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;937508If I had a dime for every post here that irked me, I'd be a wealthy man. My advice is ignore the posts you don't like or can't respond to constructively. Or at the every least, respond but don't derail your own thread by focusing endlessly on posts you dislike. If you have an issue with the forum itself, maybe take it to the help desk. Right now this is just becoming a meta-discussion about the quality of posts and posters in the thread, rather than the topic you originally raised.

Good advice. Consider it taken. Hope it will be apparent immediately.

Quote from: Sommerjon;937512Why yes, yes they here love them some hurt feelings.  They love it even more when they respond to a post, make up an assertion, say it was you, then shit all over it.  That around here will get 20-40 posts all about how swiney you are about something you didn't even say.  Around here they have no desire for discussion, they want agreement.  If you want real frothing at the mouth hatred just bring up Mother May I.   It is comical quick.

Wish I had known that from the onset. The choice I guess us do you throw your hands up and leave or swallow your principles and join the fray.

Quote from: AsenRG;937514Well, the topic he did raise was answered, mostly. The issue is he didn't like the answers and claims we're overanalyzing his example, which is what he gave us to work with:).

Rgrove, may I suggest taping yourself during next session and then cutting out a couple of 30-seconds descriptions (with or without the players' clarifying questions, your call) and uploading them on youtube for us to hear;)?

Sure, or I could just extend my neck and hand out axes.

Quote from: rgrove0172;937557Sure, or I could just extend my neck and hand out axes.

Well, then what else can we analyze except your examples:)?

Quote from: rgrove0172;937554Good advice. Consider it taken. Hope it will be apparent immediately.

Yeah. It lasted all of 3 minutes.

I'm going to close this thread as the cluster-fuck it is. I'm sure you'll start another thread going over the same ground shortly, use loaded language and then act all surprised when you get a few bites.