GM DESCRIPTION: NARRATION OR CONVERSATION?

Bedrockgames said:

Man, for the topic, this getting way too heated

Click to expand...

I think it was pretty civil until one particular poster showed up and I suspect that's been his purpose since joining the discussion.

Aldarc said:

/snip

I think that the distinction between conversation and prose tends to amount to more stylistic, tonal, and performative differences rather than vocabulary differences. These differences often pertain to diction, but this is not the same thing as vocabulary. It's about how complexly or formally we construct and arrange our uttered thoughts, but this is not the same thing as vocabulary.

Click to expand...

Now, this I can agree with. Unfortunately, in the other thread, I got shouted down for equating prose with presentation. I was told, in no uncertain terms, that how we presented the information isn't the issue, but, rather, it's all about the words.

So, you can see why I might be a bit confused.

For example, if we were to look at this sample description about a husband and wife, we could probably recognize that this is literary prose as opposed to a conversational description.

/snippage

Discounting proper names, the expected vocabulary size required is relatively small. Even if you had no idea where this text came from - and I assume here that you do - you would probably expect that this description of a family came from a literary text rather than something transcribed from a conversation.

Click to expand...

Well, again, I might argue vocabulary is an issue in there. After all, it's not an every day conversation that will include words like "caprice" "three and twenty years", "mean understanding" and "solace". After all, those are most certainly not going to appear in most people's conversations.

And, with the Harry Potter example, it's interesting that you choose that since around 98% of the words in the first Harry Potter book appear in the first 2000 most common English words. That's about as close to conversation level vocabulary as you can possibly get.

But, I agree that this is obviously prose. It's prose, because, as you say, the "organized structure, style, and tone." Which, if you go back into the other thread, I was told absolutely DOESN'T define the difference between conversation and narrative. Which is why we've been chasing our tails so much because every time I try to say, "Well, is this what you're talking about?" I get told, nope, that's not it.

I mean, [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] isn't agreeing with you here. For him, conversational means using a "blue collar" level of speech mixed with modern vernacular. It's very much focused on the vocabulary and not the style. I tend to agree with you that it is usually the style, but, again, that's not quite as simple as it seems. After all, you say that the descriptions of the Dursely's from Harry Potter is obviously prose and not a transcription of someone describing them. However, the only real difference would be things like pauses, digressions and false starts. Nothing in that description is particularly un-conversational. It's rehearsed, sure and obviously more polished than what you'd get in a conversation. But, it's not particularly something you'd never hear someone say.

Hussar said:

I mean, @Bedrockgames isn't agreeing with you here. For him, conversational means using a "blue collar" level of speech mixed with modern vernacular. It's very much focused on the vocabulary and not the style. .

Click to expand...

You keep not accurately describing both my position and Aldarc's. By conversational I don't mean blue collar level speech. It can include the of course. To me part of conversational speaking is talking in your natural voice and without trying to put on airs or trying to emulate written text. But I keep telling you it isn't strictly about vocabulary as well. It is also about style, structure, mood, etc.

Imaro said:

I think it was pretty civil until one particular poster showed up and I suspect that's been his purpose since joining the discussion.

Click to expand...

Everyone is in control of their own posts. No one can make you post uncivilly. I see more than one poster being uncivil.

Saelorn said:

I will fault that GM. That's a terrible GM, by my standards. Such behavior is a clear violation of the impartiality which a GM is expected to uphold.

I don't want to start this debate, again, right before the weekend. It's been done to death.

Click to expand...

There are different GM styles and play styles. This is one I have encountered and plenty of people enjoy it. It isn't my style, but it is one that is entirely enjoyable if you aren't uptight and walking around with a checklist of 'what a GM must do to entertain me' list.

Okay, so not going to type out an example. But here is a recording of a session. Listening to it, I think one of the key things is my reliance on the question and answer part of GM description. I try to keep the descriptions fairly accurate and straight forward. I use occasionally flashes of color. But I also lean on a fairly dry delivery: https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-tty8j-8e1d83

EDIT: That recording seems to be one where we were down one player. Here is another episode with a more robust crew: https://bedrockgames.podbean.com/e/sons-of-lady-eighty-seven-session-17-poison-was-the-cure/

dragoner said:

What does "evocative narration" even mean?

Click to expand...

I'm reasonably certain it's what a wizard does right before a fireball hits your face.

Hussar said:

Now, this I can agree with. Unfortunately, in the other thread, I got shouted down for equating prose with presentation. I was told, in no uncertain terms, that how we presented the information isn't the issue, but, rather, it's all about the words.

Click to expand...

Simple enough explanation: Multiple perspectives breed multiple opinions. I'm not going to bother though with rehashing the he-said/she-said of that thread here. If we are moving towards a more mutual and amiable understanding, then good. That's what matters.

Well, again, I might argue vocabulary is an issue in there. After all, it's not an every day conversation that will include words like "caprice" "three and twenty years", "mean understanding" and "solace". After all, those are most certainly not going to appear in most people's conversations.

Click to expand...

But that is again why I said that we could replace the vocabulary with simpler vocabulary - e.g., "unpredictability," "twenty-three," "average understanding," and "relief" - and we would still likely recognize its literary character. That's also why I followed it up with something more contemporaneous, as the first may also have represented relatively common vocabulary (at least among the literate) at the time of its composition, which would have been the early 1800s for our dear Jane Austen.

And, with the Harry Potter example, it's interesting that you choose that since around 98% of the words in the first Harry Potter book appear in the first 2000 most common English words. That's about as close to conversation level vocabulary as you can possibly get.

Click to expand...

That was intentional, much in the same manner as I had looked at Dr. Seuss (and its Seussian metre) as a counterpoint to the idea of literature requiring high vocabulary.

I mean, [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] isn't agreeing with you here. For him, conversational means using a "blue collar" level of speech mixed with modern vernacular. It's very much focused on the vocabulary and not the style. I tend to agree with you that it is usually the style, but, again, that's not quite as simple as it seems. After all, you say that the descriptions of the Dursely's from Harry Potter is obviously prose and not a transcription of someone describing them. However, the only real difference would be things like pauses, digressions and false starts. Nothing in that description is particularly un-conversational. It's rehearsed, sure and obviously more polished than what you'd get in a conversation. But, it's not particularly something you'd never hear someone say.

Click to expand...

I think that there is probably more overlap between us than you are giving credit and perhaps more overlap between the three of us as well. From what I can tell, Bedrockgames has primarily advocated his personal preference for natural language. Talking in a manner that is natural and comfortable for the speaker instead of a manner that can come across as artificial, performative, or emulative. Like when players or NPCs talk with that "fayke olde thymey Anglisch" that makes you (or at least me) cringe. I don't think that GM scene-framing narration needs to sound like narrated text from a novel. Or let's imagine it from the perspective of an actual living person. When we walk into a room for the first time, we probably don't think about or talk about its appearance using novel-esque prose.

Imaro said:

I'd answer this if I even vaguely thought you asked in good faith so...

Are you going to keep fishing for attention or are you actually going to contribute to the thread?

Hey since you prefer a conversational game how about you do something worthwhile and give an example so we can better understand what you actually mean and how it differs from the narrated examples given earlier in the thread. It cant be that hard to give an example or two of the style you prefer... can it??

Click to expand...

I have already contributed at multiple points with me weighing in on the topic in good faith.

In one of those contributions, which you must have unintentionally glossed over, I indicated that I don't so much have a conversational or prose narration preference, but, rather, a pragmatic one concerned with conveying relevant information so players can engage the fiction through their roleplay: i.e., "what the freak is going on?" I had also said that I view a lot of the GM-PC exchange as a negotiation of the shared fiction. This pragmatic approach can lend itself well towards a more conversational style of GMing, but whatever the case, it will be more of a general byproduct of my main GMing goal rather than a goal or value in itself. I don't think that this contribution was "fishing for attention" any more than other posts that have likewise noted that this need not be an either/or situation, with [MENTION=6943731]dragoner[/MENTION] even astutely noting that this was a false dilemma.

Bedrockgames said:

Everyone is in control of their own posts. No one can make you post uncivilly. I see more than one poster being uncivil.

Click to expand...

Yeah but one person can certainly be a catalyst. And that's the last I'll say on it.

Hussar said:

Wow, you folks are actually engaging SAelorn in his metagaming rabbit hole? You guys are brave.

Click to expand...

I got blocked by him when I pointed out that one of his stances was metagaming. You all better watch out.