GM DESCRIPTION: NARRATION OR CONVERSATION?

billd91 · Jun 24, 2019

Hussar said:
The range isn't narrative vs conversational, it's prose vs conversational. An important distinction I think.

Maybe - but I'd be tempted to describe it in terms of formal vs informal style. Ultimately, that's really a cosmetic difference, not one in essence. Whether formal or informal, it's narration if you're laying it out for your players. Conversation, as far as I'm concerned, would be defining it through back-and-forth discussion with players contributing elements - and even that would be started by GM narration.

pemerton · Jun 24, 2019

Aldarc said:
I'll freely admit that Imaro's task if a bit of a tall order for me. It's essentially asking for pre-scripting out an imaginary conversation, which is an artificial scenario devoid of context.

Agreed, but I think my post identifies some features of the Saltmarsh text that mark the contrast with conversational language. For instance, I think that conversatinal language - to the extent that, under some sort of regimentation, it has a main clause - is more likely to have the main clause correspond with the main body of information (eg It's a run-down bedroom with rubbish everywhere rather than There's rubbish scattered everywhere, in what was once a fine bedroom).

I also think that conversational language is probably more likely to use verbs in active voice - eg You see a room. There are mouse droppings on the floor. rather than A room comes into view. There is evidence of rodent infestation.

And of course, when we take conversation as it occurs without that sort of regimentation, it has a spontaneous non-grammaticality that is very different from written and edited prose.

I should add - I'm not any sort of empirical linguist. I'm just going on a mix of common sense intuitions and experience working with witness transcripts.

Michael Silverbane · Jun 24, 2019

pemerton said:
And of course, when we take conversation as it occurs without that sort of regimentation, it has a spontaneous non-grammaticality that is very different from written and edited prose.

Except where that written and edited prose is presented in a conversational style, or is simply badly written.

There is also, of course the fact that prose is typically used to mean plain or natural writing, as opposed to poetic writing. Except here, of course, where it is being used to mean something along the lines of, "of literary worth" and "something that non-nerds would not use."

lowkey13 · Jun 24, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Bedrockgames · Jun 24, 2019

Hussar said:
Well, kinda sorta.

Look at that description of the Dursley's above. That's adopting a very specific "voice". It's a sing songy story telling voice because the story is written for 10 year olds. It is a very deliberate choice.

Your choice of a conversational tone is deliberate since you don't like a more prose style pattern. But, make no mistake, you are still narrating the scene. There's no way to play an RPG without someone narrating the scene. Whether it's "rubbish is scattered around what was once a fine guest bedroom" or "it's a run-down bedroom with rubbish scattered about.", those are deliberate choices and both of those choices are setting the scene for the players.

The range isn't narrative vs conversational, it's prose vs conversational. An important distinction I think.

I am reacting to a situation, not narrating a scene. There is a HUGE difference

Bedrockgames · Jun 24, 2019

lowkey13 said:
To the extent your playing style, replete with reference to videogame characters, works for you- Great! But it's probably best, given the history of many who play this hobby, to refer to the way they play as some sort of highfalutin' putting on airs. Jus' sayin'- it's the kind of anti-intellectual attitude that so many of us already put up with.

(I want to stress that I don't think you mean that, but the reason that these threads get so heated is that, like any playstyle conversations, they can quickly veer from describing how a person likes to play to prescribing how others ought to play, and that statements of preferences can easily become statements of disdain for other styles)

It is about one style predominating. I am not anti-intellectual but I am anti-elitism, especially when gamers who don't talk like they came from the suburbs end up feeling out of place in the hobby (which I've seen many times firsthand). And while yes, you are right, we should all be entitled to our preferences, and there is nothing wrong with the GM narrating or talking more in a prose style....everything has downsides and excesses worth bringing up. Intellectual snobbery is a thing. And it does creep into the hobby a lot.

lowkey13 · Jun 24, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Hussar · Jun 24, 2019

billd91 said:
Maybe - but I'd be tempted to describe it in terms of formal vs informal style. Ultimately, that's really a cosmetic difference, not one in essence. Whether formal or informal, it's narration if you're laying it out for your players. Conversation, as far as I'm concerned, would be defining it through back-and-forth discussion with players contributing elements - and even that would be started by GM narration.

Yeah, that's a better way of phrasing it. Sure, I'll agree with that.

Hussar · Jun 24, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
I am reacting to a situation, not narrating a scene. There is a HUGE difference

Umm, where did the situation come from? Who initiated the situation? Who set the location, the opponents (or allies or whatever is being reacted to)?

Now, there are games where the answer to that might be "anyone at the table", but, outside of those games, by and large, it's the GM/DM who is setting the stage so to speak. Sure, the PC's open the door, but, it's the DM who describes what's in the room. And, at that point, what are you reacting to? The opening of a door? That's a pretty fine line distinction.

PC's are camping for the night in a D&D game. You roll a random encounter. At that point, you have to narrate the set up, it's unavoidable.

Like [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] said, the distinction is formal vs informal style. But, you're still narrating no matter what you do.

pemerton · Jun 25, 2019

Hussar said:
The range isn't narrative vs conversational, it's prose vs conversational. An important distinction I think.

billd91 said:
I'd be tempted to describe it in terms of formal vs informal style. Ultimately, that's really a cosmetic difference, not one in essence. Whether formal or informal, it's narration if you're laying it out for your players.

Hussar said:
Like [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] said, the distinction is formal vs informal style. But, you're still narrating no matter what you do.

Michael Silverbane said:
There is also, of course the fact that prose is typically used to mean plain or natural writing, as opposed to poetic writing. Except here, of course, where it is being used to mean something along the lines of, "of literary worth" and "something that non-nerds would not use."

I'm not too fussed what terms are used to draw the distinction that's at issue in this thread. I've been trying to follow the usage that seems to have been established. Hussar told me to use prose vs conversational, so I did. If I'm now meant to use formal vs informal, that's fine.

Whatever terminology is used, I think there is a reasonably clear contrast between (i) the Saltmarsh text, which describes a room by leading with a main clause that refers to rubbish and uses the phrase "there is evidence of rodent infestation", and (ii) a less formal/more conversational description, which uses the main clause to present the main information, and talks directly about seeing rats or mouse droppings.