GM DESCRIPTION: NARRATION OR CONVERSATION?

Bedrockgames · Jun 21, 2019

Saelorn said:
AKA, High Gygaxian

There is nothing wrong with Gygaxian. I just see it as one of many communication styles. When I meet people, I always make a point of accepting their way of talking. I've just seen a tendency among gamers to judge based on how they speak, even when the substance of what the person saying is very good.

Imaro · Jun 21, 2019

Saelorn said:
I don't follow. The GM's job is to describe the environment. If I stick to the facts in describing the environment, then the players won't be un-duly influenced.

Even the order you describe things in as noted by a poster above can influence how the players react to a situation. Could you give an example of one of these totally neutral non-influential descriptions? I mean even your reference to Barakka and Shredder (both evil, aggressive, villains) is going to influence how the players are thinking about the encounter.

Saelorn said:
Besides, players aren't allowed to consider my word choice anyway, since that would be meta-gaming. My words aren't something that exist within the game world. The spike demon is.

Uhm... ok

Fenris-77 · Jun 21, 2019

Players, being the paranoid dung-flinging primates they are, will always and forever read a universe of meaning into the DMs word choice. You can call it metagaming, you can ban it, burn books about it, print fake news about it, but it's still going to happen every time. Why not just work with what's actually going to happen?

Aldarc · Jun 21, 2019

I'm not really seeing any actual argumentative connection between saying "word choice matters" to "ergo conversational style is invalid" or "ergo evocation narration is best."

Imaro · Jun 21, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
Sure it is. You don't think we can bridge communication divides by being more empathetic and making more of an effort to understand one another and accept different communication styles? I don't know, for this is basically how I always conduct myself. I don't fault a GM for speaking in a blue-collar Boston accent using blue collar Boston vernacular for example (or any other style of talking I might encounter around me). My point is, a lot of what we are talking about is really gamesters speaking college level nerd speak. I don't think that is necessary. Especially in a hobby. It isn't the corporate world. The stakes are pretty low here. Might as well allow for the most communication styles possible. Also I've just learned from experience that type of college level communication, often just masks a lack of substantive ideas anyways.

Can you post an example of how your games go? This I think is what's missing from the thread. We have multiple examples of the narrative style (whether you use it alot or only rarely) but I've yet to see an example of this totally neutral, non-narrative, no jargon playstyle. I'm actually curious to know at this point what it actually looks/sounds like...

The Crimson Binome · Jun 21, 2019

Imaro said:
Could you give an example of one of these totally neutral non-influential descriptions? I mean even your reference to Barakka and Shredder (both evil, aggressive, villains) is going to influence how the players are thinking about the encounter.

You say that, but really, it shouldn't. If I'm giving a factual description, and the player is reading into it based on the specific words I'm using, then that player is meta-gaming and they need to stop. Acting based on the level of detail in the GM's description, rather than anything observable to the character, is a text-book example of meta-gaming.

Fenris-77 said:
Players, being the paranoid dung-flinging primates they are, will always and forever read a universe of meaning into the DMs word choice. You can call it metagaming, you can ban it, burn books about it, print fake news about it, but it's still going to happen every time. Why not just work with what's actually going to happen?

If your players are cheating, then they need to stop. If they're incapable of following the rules, then it's time to find new players. Enabling this bad habit is literally the worst thing you could possibly do.

Imaro · Jun 21, 2019

Aldarc said:
I'm not really seeing any actual argumentative connection between saying "word choice matters" to "ergo conversational style is invalid" or "ergo evocation narration is best."

It might be because no one has asserted anything is "invalid" or "best" (except for themselves and their group's playstyle).

HJFudge · Jun 21, 2019

Saelorn said:
I don't follow. The GM's job is to describe the environment. If I stick to the facts in describing the environment, then the players won't be un-duly influenced.

Besides, players aren't allowed to consider my word choice anyway, since that would be meta-gaming. My words aren't something that exist within the game world. The spike demon is.

What?

Of course players are allowed to consider your word choice. That is the primary tool that is used to communicate the game environment. It is not metagaming. You, the DM, are describing the scene to the players so that the players may make choices and react to the scene in character. Asking them to ignore what you tell them and not consider why you decided to describe the Spike Demon as friendly as opposed to threatening is nonsense of the highest order.

You, the DM, choose the words and tone to best help the players act within your world. Not in the way you want them to, but in the way THEY want to. And in order for them to be able to make proper decisions, they need to have accurate information presented to them. Yes, even if the 'accurate information' is the lie the NPC is telling them, it needs to be presented in such a way that either seems believable, if the NPC is good at lying, or in a way that is pretty obviously a lie, if the NPC sucks at lying.

By using a constant neutral tone and giving 'just the facts', you are actually depriving your players of freedom and choice and ability. You are hindering their game, handicapping them in a way that is just...well, it's adversarial DMing.

It's not metagaming. It's responding to the scene you are setting as their character would.

Bedrockgames · Jun 21, 2019

Imaro said:
Can you post an example of how your games go? This I think is what's missing from the thread. We have multiple examples of the narrative style (whether you use it alot or only rarely) but I've yet to see an example of this totally neutral, non-narrative, no jargon playstyle. I'm actually curious to know at this point what it actually looks/sounds like...

My style isn't neutral. It just accepts peoples communication styles and keeps things conversational. I may have one player who really hams up the acting, another who is much more reserved and descriptive, another who talks much more casually and uses a lot of slang. But one feature of my style is I avoid artificial sounding descriptions. I try to stick to plain English, and I give my players plenty of room to interject. IN short I avoid sounding like I am reading something pre-planned. I am speaking in the moment and am reactive to what the players do. Pemerton was the one with the purely neutral play style. In my style, I just try to avoid stuff that is railroad like or feels like the GM has a story to tell, and I avoid prose like descriptions. I just talk like I always do.

In terms of speaking styles and GMs, I simply don't care how professorial a person sounds. I'd rather play with someone who talks like a biker but has a good sense of humor than someone who has a huge vocabulary and prose-like descriptions. To me, it is about do I connect with players or GMs as people. They are not there to amuse me.

Imaro · Jun 21, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
My style isn't neutral. It just accepts peoples communication styles and keeps things conversational. I may have one player who really hams up the acting, another who is much more reserved and descriptive, another who talks much more casually and uses a lot of slang. But one feature of my style is I avoid artificial sounding descriptions. I try to stick to plain English, and I give my players plenty of room to interject. IN short I avoid sounding like I am reading something pre-planned. I am speaking in the moment and am reactive to what the players do. Pemerton was the one with the purely neutral play style. In my style, I just try to avoid stuff that is railroad like or feels like the GM has a story to tell, and I avoid prose like descriptions. I just talk like I always do.

In terms of speaking styles and GMs, I simply don't care how professorial a person sounds. I'd rather play with someone who talks like a biker but has a good sense of humor than someone who has a huge vocabulary and prose-like descriptions. To me, it is about do I connect with players or GMs as people. They are not there to amuse me.

Can you give an example of this conversational style that accepts the way all people communicate?

EDIT: Also what do you do if you have a player who likes evocative narration??