GM DESCRIPTION: NARRATION OR CONVERSATION?

Bedrockgames · Jun 13, 2019

This comes from a topic in another thread where GM description came up. Some posters saw the GM's role as that of narrator, preferring a style of description that felt like prose from a novel, others preferred a more conversational approach. The first approach was more literary, placed emphasis on being evocative and building a sense of atmosphere. The second focused more on plain spoken language and interaction between the players and GMs as the descriptions unfold. This is a simplification of the topic, but that is the basic division. And obviously there are many approaches in between and from totally different angles. I am curious what other posters think about how a GM should sound when describing things to players.

Bagpuss · Jun 13, 2019

I thought we all agreed he should sound like Matt Mercer and anything else was bound to end in disappointment?

Imaro · Jun 13, 2019

Initial thoughts...

I tend to lean towards liking the prose approach as a GM, whether that's boxed text in a pre-made adventure or prose that I have written up/improv 'd myself. It allows me a chance to create atmosphere while also allowing (when pre-written) the chance to make sure I haven't missed anything important. As a player for me it's just more evocative and immersive than the conversational narration, and draws me in more to the imaginary world the group is a part of. That said I want to make it clear that good prose doesn't have to be lengthy or overly descriptive, good prose IMO uses just enough word count to set the mood, evoke emotions and relay necessary information and err'ing on the side of shorter is probably better.

I have played in conversationally narrated games and it tends to create a sense of being a further step removed from my character, not sure why. I also noticed that it tends to increase side conversations, jokes, etc that can at times shatter or break the mood of the game There are also instances where it devolves into a million and one questions, many of which would/should have been answered if an actual narration had taken place and tend to (the longer they go on) pull me out of my character as well.

Now that said I don't expect the GM to keep up that level of description or narration for everything in the game, but I enjoy it as a scene setter an introduction to important and new things in the game and as a way to initially set the atmosphere, tone, etc of the game. I have no problem with the conversational narration if it's covering something like quick travel, an unimportant room or even nameless pointless NPC #237.

lowkey13 · Jun 13, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Bedrockgames · Jun 13, 2019

Imaro said:
Initial thoughts...

I tend to lean towards liking the prose approach as a GM, whether that's boxed text in a pre-made adventure or prose that I have written up/improv 'd myself. It allows me a chance to create atmosphere while also allowing (when pre-written) the chance to make sure I haven't missed anything important. As a player for me it's just more evocative and immersive than the conversational narration, and draws me in more to the imaginary world the group is a part of. That said I want to make it clear that good prose doesn't have to be lengthy or overly descriptive, good prose IMO uses just enough word count to set the mood, evoke emotions and relay necessary information and err'ing on the side of shorter is probably better.

I have played in conversationally narrated games and it tends to create a sense of being a further step removed from my character, not sure why. I also noticed that it tends to increase side conversations, jokes, etc that can at times shatter or break the mood of the game There are also instances where it devolves into a million and one questions, many of which would/should have been answered if an actual narration had taken place and tend to (the longer they go on) pull me out of my character as well.

Now that said I don't expect the GM to keep up that level of description or narration for everything in the game, but I enjoy it as a scene setter an introduction to important and new things in the game and as a way to initially set the atmosphere, tone, etc of the game. I have no problem with the conversational narration if it's covering something like quick travel, an unimportant room or even nameless pointless NPC #237.

This is interesting. My reaction is the opposite. When the GM is speaking in prose and it feels like I need to wait to weigh in, I feel less connected to my character and the setting.

Imaro · Jun 13, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
This is interesting. My reaction is the opposite. When the GM is speaking in prose and it feels like I need to wait to weigh in, I feel less connected to my character and the setting.

I can't comment on your experiences only my own and the reason I feel less connected with conversational narration because it lacks atmosphere or mood which is definitely something I as my character want described and because the back and forth questions to get basic information it often devolves into is hard for me to correlate to anything along the lines of how my character takes in info or even his thought or action processes. It feels weird to have to get basic information piecemeal and in a back and forth with the GM. For me when the GM is narrating, it feels much more as if my character is first taking it in, it's what he initially sees, smells, hears, his impressions, etc.

The Crimson Binome · Jun 13, 2019

In my opinion, the point of having the GM describe something is that it lets the players know what the reality of the situation is. I find long-winded descriptions to be distasteful, primarily because it's an attempt to manipulate the emotions of the player, but also because it makes the world feel more like a novel and less like a real place. In the real world, if you walk up to some scenic vista, the only description you get is whatever you make up for yourself, based on the reality you see; likewise, the GM's job is to present the reality, and you can make of that what you will.

I once described a Spike Demon as a cross between Baraka and Super Shredder, because that seemed like the most efficient way of conveying the image to my audience. What I'm saying is much more important than how I say it.

Satyrn · Jun 13, 2019

When I'm DMing, I find that I'm at my best when the session looks like an Agatha Christie novel: there's the briefest narration, enough to set the scene and nothing more, and the action is resolved in the dialog.

HJFudge · Jun 13, 2019

I think a mixture of both styles is probably best used in most d20 systems I play.

I begin by narrating the scene's description...BRIEFLY. I then go to a more conversational approach and talk with the players and encourage them to further explore and question and interact.

The beginning narration sets the tone of the scene. I feel that its best done well...if its a major thing I have prepared for, I'll usually have a brief paragraph or two to read that I have written in advance. However a lot of times the scene needing described is NOT something I have prepared for, in which case I simply try to describe from Big to Small in a narrative voice and have a little cheat sheat where I remind myself to hit on different senses: Sight/Sound/Smell/Touch/Taste....again, BRIEFLY. Also not ALL of the senses need to be mentioned ALL of the time. The sheet is there to remind me to vary it up.

Most of the game, however, is done in a conversational style and tone as the players interact with the world.

TL;DR: Both should be used. Narrative style for descriptions of important scenes, conversational style for everything else.

jasper · Jun 13, 2019

BOTH BOTH.
If I trying to setup a mood or atmosphere narrator. If it is 7/11 tavern number 1307 established in 2012 conversation.
BUT BUT
What is best changes with my mood and my players mood.