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

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.

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.