Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

Maxperson said:

I run a sandbox type game. A sandbox requires proactive players. Reactive players just sit in a sandbox like lumps. In a sandbox game, the players have a duty to bring ideas and goals for their PCs to the table in order to drive the game forward.

Click to expand...

I run sandboxes as well. My approach is I want players to be both active and reactive. But I generally agree.

I don't find it terribly useful, no. The DM is all of those things to varying degrees, depending on the DM and style of game.

Click to expand...

And I don't expect you to share my view on this. If you think the GM should be a mix of storyteller and adjudicator, that is totally fine. I just hope you can understand, I genuinely do not see myself as a storyteller. We all had very different paths to where we are. One thing that really frustrated me during the height of d20 (and I had been playing RPGs for a long time leading up to that and seen the industry go through several fads and fashions) was the fact that the GM was expected to run the game in a way that, to me, felt very plot driven, and very much built around a pre-planned series of encounters. I found that terribly frustrating because as a GM, I thought I might as well just give my players the notes. I wasn't a referee, I was just telling them the story I wanted to tell. So I went into he woods and spent a lot of time figuring out what I wanted playing older modules, obscure newer ones and rebelling agains a lot of the standard GM advice of that period. One thing I knew I didnt enjoy was being a storyteller. I abostluely hated the idea of it. It just wasn't for me. Whether it was storyteller as me crafting a story, or even as me narrating the details in a flavorful way. I wanted to adjudicate and run a game. I wanted my GM style to be conversational, natural and as far from artifice as possible. That doesn't mean I am an unskilled communicator. In fact, I think I am very good at communication. But I see GMing as being more in the realm of a social activity, where I am speaking with my players, not where I am narrative things that they have no control over or are not interacting with. I am trying to encourage interaction when I convey details about the world. Not caught up in my delivery at all. I don't expect you or hussar to share my view. I really don't understand why you want me to adopt your language and viewpoint. I can tell you, I wouldn't find it all helpful to how I run games.

Hussar said:

2. Born of the blood of the glutton Titan Gaurak, "this hideous horse sized creature appears to be a twisted hybrid of beetle, mantis and maggot. It stinks of carrion and blood"

Now, the second description is a direct quote from the Creature Collection Revised for Scarred Lands. Which do you think would be more effective and needed at the table? Which do you think would be more likely to draw some sort of visceral reaction from the players? Which do think is the better description? After all, both get the description of the creature across pretty accurately.

Note, for reference, here's a Vengaurak:

Click to expand...

Um. Can I change my answer? Nice Vengaurak. Niiiiiiice Vengaurak. Here's some more loot for you.

Hussar said:

But, that's entirely the point.

We talk about the kobolds on the hill and we don't need a whole lot more than that, because, well, frankly, we're all experienced gamers and we know what a kobold is. At some point in our gaming history, someone has described a kobold to us. Probably several someones over the years. So, now, we can basically take it as read that we know what a kobold is and what we should do if we see them.

But, a Vengaurak? Well, you don't know what that is. So, someone needs to explain to you what it looks like and what it wants. Now, here's two descriptions:

1. You know that cockroach monster at the end of Men in Black? That's more or less what you see.

2. Born of the blood of the glutton Titan Gaurak, "this hideous horse sized creature appears to be a twisted hybrid of beetle, mantis and maggot. It stinks of carrion and blood"

Now, the second description is a direct quote from the Creature Collection Revised for Scarred Lands. Which do you think would be more effective and needed at the table? Which do you think would be more likely to draw some sort of visceral reaction from the players? Which do think is the better description? After all, both get the description of the creature across pretty accurately.

Note, for reference, here's a Vengaurak:

Click to expand...

Honestly, I think the description that compares to a creature they already have an image of in their head works better so I would go with option 1. Option one is definitely less literary, it generally would be less effective in a book. But in a conversation at the table it can provide a clearer image. You don’t need the words to look good on a page when you are talking to players. Honestly this is one of the major problems with GM advice: advice is text based, and it is easy to write an example that looks amazing on paper. How often have any of you seen a great play example write up but struggled to get a game to feel like the write-up? I know I struggled to get my ravenloft games to sound like the example write ups (which relied heavily on quality description). These are two different mediums. I think understand that has been crucial to my enjoyment of play

also I am not terribly worried about the players picturing the monster ‘correctly’. It is a game if imagination. People can imagine these things differently and ask for specific points of clarification where it matters

Bedrockgames said:

Honestly, I think the description that compares to a creature they already have an image of in their head works better so I would go with option 1. Option one is definitely less literary, it generally would be less effective in a book. But in a conversation at the table it can provide a clearer image. You don’t need the words to look good on a page when you are talking to players. Honestly this is one of the major problems with GM advice: advice is text based, and it is easy to write an example that looks amazing on paper. How often have any of you seen a great play example write up but struggled to get a game to feel like the write-up? I know I struggled to get my ravenloft games to sound like the example write ups (which relied heavily on quality description). These are two different mediums. I think understand that has been crucial to my enjoyment of play

also I am not terribly worried about the players picturing the monster ‘correctly’ . It is a game if imagination. People can imagine these things differently and ask for specific points of clarification where it matters

Click to expand...

Emphasis mine... I am confused by this answer. You choose option one because it provides a commonly known and more clear image but then go on to state that you aren't concerned with correctly depicting the monster and that you have no problem with the players imagining the same thing differently in your game... Which one in actual play do you subscribe to?

EDIT: I also note you said you have struggled with write-ups in games like Ravenloft, could your aversion to this style be centered around it being a weakness in your skill set?

Bedrockgames said:

I think of all people on this thread, I have the most reason to be wary of Pemerton's posts (if you think that thread was bad, read the racist colonialist orcs thread). When I saw the OP I initially read it in a negative light. But I made a point of re-reading to see if I was reading my own feelings into it. I reached the conclusions this was very different from our previous discussion. Also, in that thread, I was guilty of plenty of emotional and angry posts myself. Just because I was ticked off at Pemerton in that thread (and I think with some fair amount of good reason), doesn't mean I need to always be negatively disposed towards him. As I took pains to say in that thread, I do admire Pemerton's intelligence and I do admire his ability to make a good argument. I would be foolish not to consider his posts fairly because when he does make a good point, it is often insightful.

I don't see him denigrating a style in this case. In fact in this argument, I think it is the other side that is largely doing the denigrating. Just because I disagreed with him before or thought he was being a bit rude about something before, doesn't mean he is always wrong or that I, and others, are never also being rude. I would encourage you to read some of the posts by yourself and by others on your side of this debate again and then look at our responses to them. There have been moments where I've responded more emotionally than I would have liked, but on the whole I feel I have been reacting fairly calmly given the tone of some of the posts directed at me.

Also, please don't go mining my prior posts to post a gotcha of me in this thread. I understand why you are doing it, but in my view, that doesn't show a lot of good faith. If I have to defend not only my posts on this thread, but posts I've made in previous threads, that isn't exactly a friendly discussion and starts to feel more like an inquisition.

Click to expand...

Imaro said:

Emphasis mine... I am confused by this answer. You choose option one because it provides a commonly known and more clear image but then go on to state that you aren't concerned with correctly depicting the monster and that you have no problem with the players imagining the same thing differently in your game... Which one in actual play do you subscribe to?

Click to expand...

My point with option one is it just an easier way to convey details by drawing on movie references than by providing a literary style description. Generally when it comes to monster descriptions, I am fine hashing out the details. I don’t want a full paragraph of description like option 2. I am also not terribly worried about whether the players are imagining the illustration in the book. Still if I can give them a clear sense of what I mean by comparing to a movie character, place or creature, I am happy to do that. So I may say the inn keeper is giving off a Steve Buscemi vibe. That could mean lots of things. I don’t particularly care how the players interpret it as long as it helps give them a clear mental image. And I don’t need more physical description than that (not going to get into his clothing, hair, mannerisms. Etc)

Bedrockgames said:

I think of all people on this thread, I have the most reason to be wary of Pemerton's posts (if you think that thread was bad, read the racist colonialist orcs thread). When I saw the OP I initially read it in a negative light. But I made a point of re-reading to see if I was reading my own feelings into it. I reached the conclusions this was very different from our previous discussion. Also, in that thread, I was guilty of plenty of emotional and angry posts myself. Just because I was ticked off at Pemerton in that thread (and I think with some fair amount of good reason), doesn't mean I need to always be negatively disposed towards him. As I took pains to say in that thread, I do admire Pemerton's intelligence and I do admire his ability to make a good argument. I would be foolish not to consider his posts fairly because when he does make a good point, it is often insightful.

I don't see him denigrating a style in this case. In fact in this argument, I think it is the other side that is largely doing the denigrating. Just because I disagreed with him before or thought he was being a bit rude about something before, doesn't mean he is always wrong or that I, and others, are never also being rude. I would encourage you to read some of the posts by yourself and by others on your side of this debate again and then look at our responses to them. There have been moments where I've responded more emotionally than I would have liked, but on the whole I feel I have been reacting fairly calmly given the tone of some of the posts directed at me.

Also, please don't go mining my prior posts to post a gotcha of me in this thread. I understand why you are doing it, but in my view, that doesn't show a lot of good faith. If I have to defend not only my posts on this thread, but posts I've made in previous threads, that isn't exactly a friendly discussion and starts to feel more like an inquisition.

Click to expand...

Imaro said:

Emphasis mine... I am confused by this answer. You choose option one because it provides a commonly known and more clear image but then go on to state that you aren't concerned with correctly depicting the monster and that you have no problem with the players imagining the same thing differently in your game... Which one in actual play do you subscribe to?

EDIT: I also note you said you have struggled with write-ups in games like Ravenloft, could your aversion to this style be centered around it being a weakness in your skill set?

Click to expand...

No it is not centered around a weakness because I became quite good at providing those kinds of descriptions. I just realized a lot of players are not as into that stuff. And there are medium issues that make the examples somewhat unrealistic. Most players are less impressed by your ability to talk like HP Lovecraft than they are with your ability to communicate conversationally as a GM (at least in my experience). The more I moved away from the more artificial Ravenloft approach and moved towRd a conversational natural style, the more my games (especially horror) improved. Maybe that is just my personality. If ravenloft stuff works for you, go for it. But understand it doesn’t suit everyone (and that isn’t about weakness as much as it is about personal preference). I am not particularly concerned with claiming to be some great GM. I would say I am average to decent. It is a game at the end of the day. I am there to enjoy myself

Bedrockgames said:

I don’t want a full paragraph of description like option 2.

Click to expand...

It was two short sentences. A paragraph is at least 5 sentences. The description you went with, #1, is also two short sentences and contains 3 fewer words. That's it. 3 more words is apparently a "full paragraph" and too much of a description.

Hussar said:

But, that's entirely the point.

We talk about the kobolds on the hill and we don't need a whole lot more than that, because, well, frankly, we're all experienced gamers and we know what a kobold is. At some point in our gaming history, someone has described a kobold to us. Probably several someones over the years. So, now, we can basically take it as read that we know what a kobold is and what we should do if we see them.

But, a Vengaurak? Well, you don't know what that is. So, someone needs to explain to you what it looks like and what it wants. Now, here's two descriptions:

1. You know that cockroach monster at the end of Men in Black? That's more or less what you see.

2. Born of the blood of the glutton Titan Gaurak, "this hideous horse sized creature appears to be a twisted hybrid of beetle, mantis and maggot. It stinks of carrion and blood"

Now, the second description is a direct quote from the Creature Collection Revised for Scarred Lands. Which do you think would be more effective and needed at the table? Which do you think would be more likely to draw some sort of visceral reaction from the players? Which do think is the better description? After all, both get the description of the creature across pretty accurately.

Note, for reference, here's a Vengaurak:

Click to expand...

I and my players would definitely prefer 2 it's succinct enough that it isn't going to drag but conveys enough info to evoke an accurate enough mental image and conveys a sense that this creature has a wrongness about it and is dangerous.

EDIT: It also illustrates that long prose or excessive word count is not necessary for quality.

Maxperson said:

It was two short sentences. A paragraph is at least 5 sentences. The description you went with, #1, is also two short sentences and contains 3 fewer words. That's it. 3 more words is apparently a "full paragraph" and too much of a description.

Click to expand...

Lol... I noticed this as well.

Imaro said:

Lol... I noticed this as well.

Click to expand...

My players and I obviously from my side in this thread, prefer option 2. However, none of us are against me adding in, "Remember the bug monster from the end of Men in Black? It kinda looks like that." if they are having some obvious difficulties picturing the creature from the description. I rarely have to go to something extra like that, though.