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.