GM DESCRIPTION: NARRATION OR CONVERSATION?

Aldarc · Jun 22, 2019

Hussar said:
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?

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], I would strongly appreciate it if you would stop constructing strawman arguments with my name attached and insisting that I am strongly saying anything that we both know you can't back up with evidence. It's rude and you're being a dick. Thankfully, I'm confident that [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] will exercise more sense than to bite at your misrepresentations of what I have said.

The Crimson Binome · Jun 22, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
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.

If you're okay with manipulating players by giving them meta-game information that you expect them to act upon, by means of how you describe a scene, then... at least you're being consistent. I can't fault how your logic follows from your premise, regardless of how vehemently I disagree with that premise.

Personally, I'm not going to meta-game, and I'm not going to allow meta-gamers at my table. If we're playing a role-playing game, then I'm going to insist on role-playing, because that's the point.

generic · Jun 22, 2019

Everyone knows that a GM should sound like a victorian novel; bubbling over with purple prose.

Bedrockgames · Jun 22, 2019

Saelorn said:
If you're okay with manipulating players by giving them meta-game information that you expect them to act upon, by means of how you describe a scene, then... at least you're being consistent. I can't fault how your logic follows from your premise, regardless of how vehemently I disagree with that premise.

Personally, I'm not going to meta-game, and I'm not going to allow meta-gamers at my table. If we're playing a role-playing game, then I'm going to insist on role-playing, because that's the point.

This seems very inflexible to me. I am fine with concrete cases of 'your character doesn't really know X'. But vague meta gaming like leaning toward suspicion of one NPC because of how that NPC is described? That feels more like following an obvious hint by the GM than anything else. Now maybe you prefer not to give such obvious hints. And that is fine. But I can't fault a GM who does (or a player who responds accordingly).

Hussar · Jun 22, 2019

Aldarc said:
[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], I would strongly appreciate it if you would stop constructing strawman arguments with my name attached and insisting that I am strongly saying anything that we both know you can't back up with evidence. It's rude and you're being a dick. Thankfully, I'm confident that [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] will exercise more sense than to bite at your misrepresentations of what I have said.

Wait, what?

So, vocabulary IS the important distinction between conversational and prose language?

Now I'm really confused.

Frankly [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION], I'm really having trouble parsing your argument through the snark. Could you please, in simple terms, outline what your argument actually is then? Because, honestly, I wasn't trying to misrepresent anything. I honestly believed that you were arguing that vocabulary did not matter.

The Crimson Binome · Jun 22, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
Now maybe you prefer not to give such obvious hints. And that is fine. But I can't fault a GM who does (or a player who responds accordingly).

I will fault that GM. That's a terrible GM, by my standards. Such behavior is a clear violation of the impartiality which a GM is expected to uphold.

I don't want to start this debate, again, right before the weekend. It's been done to death.

Aldarc · Jun 22, 2019

Hussar said:
So, vocabulary IS the important distinction between conversational and prose language?

Could you please, in simple terms, outline what your argument actually is then? Because, honestly, I wasn't trying to misrepresent anything. I honestly believed that you were arguing that vocabulary did not matter.

I don't think that "vocabulary IS the important distinction between conversational and prose language," but that does not mean that I am arguing "pretty vehemently, all the way along that vocabulary choice doesn't matter." This was also not true on the other thread either. (In fact, I'm not sure if there was anyone on the other thread who believed otherwise.) This latter point is a false position that you have constructed of your own devices and then attributed to me. You are, however, correct when you suggest that "@Aldarc would say...that 'big adjectives' ISN'T what delineates conversation from boxed text." I think that the distinction between conversation and prose tends to amount to more stylistic, tonal, and performative differences rather than vocabulary differences. These differences often pertain to diction, but this is not the same thing as vocabulary. It's about how complexly or formally we construct and arrange our uttered thoughts, but this is not the same thing as vocabulary.

For example, if we were to look at this sample description about a husband and wife, we could probably recognize that this is literary prose as opposed to a conversational description.

Mr. [CHARACTER] was so odd a mixture of quick parts, sarcastic humour, reserve, and caprice, that the experience of three and twenty years had been insufficient to make his wife understand his character. Her mind was less difficult to develop. She was a woman of mean understanding, little information, and uncertain temper. When she was discontented, she fancied herself nervous. The business of her life was to get her daughters married; its solace was visiting and news.

How might you recognize that? It's not necessarily "how big the words are" that tips us off, but, rather, the style and manner by which these ideas are communicated. Sure, you or possibly [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] would point to the "big adjectives," but I would say it's how these words are constructed together that makes the difference. We could even go back through this piece and replace the "big adjectives" with simpler synonyms, and we could still probably recognize this as literary prose due to how the ideas are communicated through organized structure, style, and tone. Though maybe this is not modern enough of a text?

Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much. They were the last people you'd expect to be involved in anything strange or mysterious, because they just didn't hold with such nonsense.

Mr. Dursley was the director of a firm called Grunnings, which made drills. He was a big, beefy man with hardly any neck, although he did have a very large mustache. Mrs. Dursley was thin and blonde and had nearly twice the usual amount of neck, which came in very useful as she spent so much of her time craning over garden fences, spying on the neighbors. The Dursleys had a small son called Dudley and in their opinion there was no finer boy anywhere.

Discounting proper names, the expected vocabulary size required is relatively small. Even if you had no idea where this text came from - and I assume here that you do - you would probably expect that this description of a family came from a literary text rather than something transcribed from a conversation.

HJFudge · Jun 22, 2019

Saelorn said:
If you're okay with manipulating players by giving them meta-game information that you expect them to act upon, by means of how you describe a scene, then... at least you're being consistent. I can't fault how your logic follows from your premise, regardless of how vehemently I disagree with that premise.

Personally, I'm not going to meta-game, and I'm not going to allow meta-gamers at my table. If we're playing a role-playing game, then I'm going to insist on role-playing, because that's the point.

But you are.

You are doing the DEFINITION of Metagaming. You are tailoring the way you give out information because you are trying to prevent the players from engaging with the characters in a certain way. You are using out of game knowledge to try and force a certain behavior from the characters in the game. That, by definition, is Metagaming.

In order to PREVENT metagaming you HAVE TO present the information in such a way that communicates the scene effectively to the players at the table so that they can play their characters and react as there characters would.

This whole discussion reminds me of the concept that you can tell a LOT about someones politics by what they consider non-political.

You have decided, as a DM, to present information in a very incomplete manner, depriving players of choice in your table because of your ideas of how they should and should not be allowed to interact with the world. And that is fine, if thats how you wish to play.

But its the exact opposite of not allowing metagaming. You are forcing it. You are engaging it. This is how you play your game. Context matters. Word choice matters. Phrasing matters. This is how information is transmitted in real life, and in order for a game to be as immersive as possible you must communicate in the same way. You must set the scene for what the Characters see, in the way the characters would see them.

The friendly spike demon would attempt to wine and dine the party it is attempting to woo to support his cause. Is it always dangerous? No, no it is not, it is only dangerous if its intentions are bad. How does someone communicate their intentions, in real life? By making sure they communicate in soft, non threatening tones using body language and in a place that is non-confrontational. By failing to do this in a game where the Spike Demon (why are we choosing a spike demon here btw?) is trying to get the party to complete a task for it, you are pre-disposing the characters to see BAD SPIKE MAN MUST KILL because you have failed at properly communicating with your group and engaging with the players and the characters both.

You are failing as a communicator, failing as a DM, Metagaming and then saying you are doing the exact opposite.

IT IS NONSENSE.

Imaro · Jun 22, 2019

Aldarc said:
What do you do if you have a player who doesn't like evocative narration???

I'd answer this if I even vaguely thought you asked in good faith so...

Are you going to keep fishing for attention or are you actually going to contribute to the thread?

Hey since you prefer a conversational game how about you do something worthwhile and give an example so we can better understand what you actually mean and how it differs from the narrated examples given earlier in the thread. It cant be that hard to give an example or two of the style you prefer... can it??