GM DESCRIPTION: NARRATION OR CONVERSATION?
Page 1 of 19 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 182
  1. #1
    Member
    The Great Druid (Lvl 17)

    Bedrockgames's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    5,344

    GM DESCRIPTION: NARRATION OR CONVERSATION?

    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.

  2. #2
    Member
    Guide (Lvl 11)

    Bagpuss's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    The Wirral, UK
    Posts
    4,786
    I thought we all agreed he should sound like Matt Mercer and anything else was bound to end in disappointment?
    Laugh Aldarc, jasper, Imaculata, N/A, S'mon laughed with this post

  3. #3
    Member
    The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)



    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,762
    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.
    XP Maxperson gave XP for this post

  4. #4
    Member
    A "Drizzit" Type-Thing (Lvl 28)



    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    The Stately Pleasure Dome of Xanadu.
    Posts
    7,279
    Quote Originally Posted by Bedrockgames View Post
    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.
    While I wish you had framed it differently, using different words (see what I did there), I will try to just state my position:

    First, this isn't about RPGs in general; this is about TTRPGs.*

    Second, this isn't about all TTRPGs, I am referring to "mainstream" TTRPGS (for lack of a better phrase) that have a GM and multiple players, and the game exists in the interaction between the players and the GM within the specified diegetic framework; moreover, the GM has final content control of the gameworld (the diegetic framework).**

    Okay, so with those disclaimers out of the way-

    The type and nature of the interaction between the players and the DM will be system-dependent, and while some systems will allow multiple modes of interaction, other systems will exhibit strong preferences to one, or another, mode of interaction.

    Clear?

    Let me give three examples that I hope are fairly easy to understand:

    A. Narration Strong

    Paranoia (I am thinking of the early, 80s, editions, that I still play). So, in order to properly play Paranoia, IMO, you absolutely have to use word choice and build a sense of atmosphere. The game is, fundamentally, a darkly humorous game, and in order for the game to "work" you need to have the GM and the players build within the specified diegetic framework using appropriate narrative language for any given situation. In other words, if the phrase, "Friend Computer" isn't used, or you don't understand what "Please refrain from smoking when terminated" means, you aren't maximizing the value of the system.

    Or, put another way, if you play Paranoia in a normal, "plain language" conversational manner, it will easily be the WORST rpg experience of your life. "And then I died again. Unfairly. For the sixth time. Due to a weapon mishap. And the game was over. Man, that sucked."

    B. Plain Language

    So, if you've ever played a game like FASA Battletech, you know that the game doesn't require any kind of special narration; in fact, such narration will just slow down the good bits (awesome Mechas battling Mechas!). There's not much else to say, really ... woah. That's meta.

    C. Mixed


    Take 5e ... please (h/t Henny Youngman). There is no requirement that narration be particularly good, or long, or ornate; or that characters be done in-voice; or that the DM and the players attempt to enhance the RP part of the RPG by building an evocative atmosphere. Now, there might be occasions when a more narrative style is preferred (for example, if you want to lean heavily into the Gothic Horror of Ravenloft). There might be times when it is not preferred (for example, when you are running a combat-heavy old-school dungeon crawl). But it really depends on how the group wants to play.


    TLDR; what is best will depend on the system and the table.





    *Obviously, when considering other RPGs, such as LARPs, performance matters a great deal.

    **The final is necessary, as I am including games that allow substantial player content creation, but assuming that the GM has final authority to, at a minimum, resolve disputes.
    XP Scott Christian gave XP for this post

  5. #5
    Member
    The Great Druid (Lvl 17)

    Bedrockgames's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    5,344
    Quote Originally Posted by Imaro View Post
    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.
    XP Aldarc, Saelorn gave XP for this post

  6. #6
    Member
    The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)



    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Bedrockgames View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    Member
    Greater Elemental (Lvl 23)



    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    6,834
    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.

  8. #8
    Member
    Hydra (Lvl 25)



    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    4,830
    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.
    XP The Monster gave XP for this post

  9. #9
    Member
    Scout (Lvl 6)



    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    86
    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.
    XP Imaro, Maxperson gave XP for this post

  10. #10
    Member
    Grandmaster of Flowers (Lvl 18)

    jasper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    montgomery al
    Posts
    3,771
    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.

Similar Threads

  1. What's your game running narration?
    By Dawid Wolski in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Friday, 6th October, 2017, 03:39 PM
  2. Hit Point Narration
    By Nytmare in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: Sunday, 10th June, 2012, 07:16 PM
  3. Narration back into the system
    By Tymophil in forum *Pathfinder & Starfinder
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: Sunday, 28th August, 2011, 09:05 PM
  4. gimme back my narration
    By cr0m in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 146
    Last Post: Thursday, 23rd October, 2008, 03:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •