GM DESCRIPTION: NARRATION OR CONVERSATION?

Hussar · Jun 22, 2019

But, that's the problem [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION]. What constitutes "boxed text style" prose and what is just "conversational"? Most of the time, there isn't a hugely detectable difference. Most boxed text is pretty straight forward description - "the room is such and such big, there are so and so doors, the furnishings are this and that and there's a such and such inhabitant in the room that wants to eat you" is pretty par for the course description.

So, what differentiates that from "normal conversation"? To me, I chose the difference as being vocabulary. Word choice, outside of game terms, is what separates "narrative" from "conversation". I'm not sure how else you can differentiate.

I guess, that's my question to you then, as the OP, what differentiates "evocative prose" from "conversation"?

dragoner · Jun 22, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
That has been one of the difficulties of finding clarity in the conversation. It is basically shorthand for speaking in 'boxed text' or 'prose' style.

Heh I don't know what speaking in "boxed text" means either, but I looked up "Prose" in Merriam-Webster:

2: to write or speak in a dull or ordinary manner

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prose

Not sure if that sounds like a good thing.

HJFudge · Jun 22, 2019

Saelorn said:
Don't react to my choice of words. React to what those words mean.

The spike demon is equally threatening, regardless of which words I use to convey that threat. It isn't suddenly less-dangerous, just because I use cheap words and pop-culture references to convey that threat. It isn't more-dangerous, if I use scary words and graphic imagery. It is what it is, nothing more and nothing less, regardless of out-of-game factors such as the vocabulary of the one describing it.

If you can't separate the content of a message from the box it's packaged in, then that's on you.

But what words mean depends heavily on how they are presented.

I can tell a friend, cheerfully, that I hate them for life. He knows, and I know, that it means "I love you bro."

But if I tell someone whom I actually hate that I hate them for life, trust me. The words will be the EXACT SAME but the meaning will be ENTIRELY different.

That isnt pop culture reference. It is using the exact same words to imply two very different meanings because context and tone and presentation matter. Thats just how communication works. In all facets of life.

The box is part of the message. Pretending its not demonstrates a lack of understanding of how people Communicate and transmit information.

Bedrockgames · Jun 22, 2019

dragoner said:
Heh I don't know what speaking in "boxed text" means either, but I looked up "Prose" in Merriam-Webster:

2: to write or speak in a dull or ordinary manner

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prose

Not sure if that sounds like a good thing.

By prose, I simply meant speaking like a narrator of a novel

Bedrockgames · Jun 22, 2019

Hussar said:
But, that's the problem @Bedrockgames. What constitutes "boxed text style" prose and what is just "conversational"? Most of the time, there isn't a hugely detectable difference. Most boxed text is pretty straight forward description - "the room is such and such big, there are so and so doors, the furnishings are this and that and there's a such and such inhabitant in the room that wants to eat you" is pretty par for the course description.

So, what differentiates that from "normal conversation"? To me, I chose the difference as being vocabulary. Word choice, outside of game terms, is what separates "narrative" from "conversation". I'm not sure how else you can differentiate.

I guess, that's my question to you then, as the OP, what differentiates "evocative prose" from "conversation"?

I would say there is a huge difference, and the difference was quite clear on the previous thread and has been pretty stark here as well. I am not interested in debating the characteristics of boxed text, needless to say, I find boxed text, in my experience, to be more evocative than you do (though maybe that just reflects the types of models we both gravitate towards). What I will say is by boxed text style I mean something that sounds a bit like a description from a novel, with an aim of establishing atmosphere and mood, and faith in the ability of adjectives to immerse the listener. It isn't plainspoken English. When I describe things to my players, I use slang, I don't use big adjectives, and I talking to them like it is a conversation. I don't know. This isn't rocket science. Are people genuinely confused about what 'conversational English' is. Are people seriously arguing here that there isn't a distinction to be made between conversational English and a more dramatic novel-like attempt at descriptions? I feel like this is a pretty obvious and easy to understand divide. And I have to wonder if people are just blurring dualities to win some kind of argument.

The Crimson Binome · Jun 22, 2019

HJFudge said:
I can tell a friend, cheerfully, that I hate them for life. He knows, and I know, that it means "I love you bro."

Exactly. The content of the message is infinitely more important than how you phrase it. You use whichever words are necessary to make your audience understand the reality of the situation, because the important thing is that they understand you.

HJFudge said:
The box is part of the message. Pretending its not demonstrates a lack of understanding of how people Communicate and transmit information.

Everyone suffers from cognitive bias, to some degree. Being aware of that bias is the first step toward compensating for it.

The rules of an RPG declare flat-out that you must disregard the box for the purpose of playing the game. You are not allowed to investigate a particular area, simply because the way that the GM described it makes you believe that something is hidden there. You can't assume that one NPC is more important than the three next to him, simply because the GM gives you three paragraphs of detail about the former while the latter group is given half a sentence. These are textbook examples of illegal meta-gaming. If you do that, then you are cheating, by violating the rules of the game.

When I'm the GM, I don't want to be adversarial, so I'm not going to tempt players to try and cheat by giving them information that they aren't allowed to use. I'm going to try, to the best of my ability, to only let them know the information that their character can observe.

Bedrockgames · Jun 22, 2019

Saelorn said:
The rules of an RPG declare flat-out that you must disregard the box for the purpose of playing the game. You are not allowed to investigate a particular area, simply because the way that the GM described it makes you believe that something is hidden there. You can't assume that one NPC is more important than the three next to him, simply because the GM gives you three paragraphs of detail about the former while the latter group is given half a sentence. These are textbook examples of illegal meta-gaming. If you do that, then you are cheating, by violating the rules of the game.

This seems pretty harsh to me. Policing meta gaming like that just feels extreme. And I don't think it is cheating. Different RPGs state different things about meta gaming. Some don't even mention meta gaming at all.

Hussar · Jun 22, 2019

See, ok, [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], but, what you're talking about is vocabulary choice. Fair enough. But, [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] has insisted, pretty vehemently, all the way along that vocabulary choice doesn't matter. And, you have never contradicted him. So, are you disagreeing with [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]? It appears that you are, but, I want to be very sure.

It's not about "blurring dualities". It's that your side of the argument isn't quite as clear as you might think. It's confusing. You're saying that vocabulary matters. Aldarc is very strongly saying that vocabulary doesn't. So, which is it?

Now, me, I think I agree with you - vocabulary matters. Now, you don't think there's much value in using an extended vocabulary - that you "don't use big adjectives". Fair enough. That's where you and I disagree. I think that most DM's actually do slip into "big adjectives", mostly subconsciously, depending on what game you happen to be playing. But, [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] would say that we're both wrong and that "big adjectives" ISN'T what delineates conversation from boxed text.

And, frankly, if vocabulary isn't the delineating element, I'm at a loss as to what is. What separates conversational language from prose language if it's not vocabulary choice? Is it false starts and repetition (both hallmarks of conversation vs reading)? What?