Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Not me. I learned my lesson last time. Nice Zifnarb. Niiiiiice Zifnarb. Here's some loot for you.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?
- Thread starter pemerton
- Start date
Not me. I learned my lesson last time. Nice Zifnarb. Niiiiiice Zifnarb. Here's some loot for you.
Hussar
Legend
Heh, you joke, but, the point is still there.
[MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] relied on comparisons - a warhorse to a Lamborghini to make the point. Or comparing the monster to the monster at the end of Men in Black. Only problem is, that presumes that the listener actually knows what you're talking about. If someone hasn't seen Men in Black or isn't a car person, then these comparisons fall flat. You wind up with a Darmok and Jelad in Tenagra situation.
At some point in time, you have to drop the analogies and actually describe what's going on, directly. And, if you want to have any hope of hooking the players, you need to use at least some evocative language. Unless your game consists of nothing but retreaded material, where the context is already set, you need to actually paint that picture for the player. Sure, "There's a bomb" is going to get a reaction. We all know what a bomb is. "There's a bakudan" isn't really telling anyone anything, unless they happen to speak the language. At which time, you have to break out your wordsmithing anvil and hammer and paint a bit of a word picture to engage the player. (To badly mangle a metaphor
)Thousands and thousands of pages of setting guides, genre fiction and whatnot shows just how important painting that word picture is to gaming. Think about it. We know what a githyanki is and if the DM tells us we see three githyanki, we've got a pretty good idea what's going on. To anyone else, that's just gibberish. Meaningless words. Without a certain degree of the literary (as in quality of language), you just aren't going to have any impact on the players.
Aldarc
Legend
Or, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], you can just tell players what the monster or thing is. It's not like evocative language is required for saying "Oh, Thor? You know that he is the god of storms in this land." Or "a githyanki is a race that lives in the astral sea that looks like this [shows picture]." If players want more detail, they can ask and initiate a conversation. I don't know why you present this as either evocative language or nothing.
Hussar
Legend
Hang on. "Astral Sea"? What's that? Where did you get that picture? And, again, just showing me a picture of some green alien isn't exactly telling me anything. And are you honestly saying that that's as evocative as "The warlike Githyanki and the contemplative githzerai are a sundered poeple - two cultures that utterly despise one another. ... The githyanki plunder countless worlds from the decks of their astral vessels and thebacks of red dragons. Feathers, beads, gems and precious metals decorate their armor and weapons - the legendary silver swords with which they cut through their foes. Since winning their freedom from the mind flayers, the githyanki have become ruthless conquerors under the rulership of their dread lich-queen, Vlaakith." ((Sorry, typos are all mine))
Remember, we're talking about introducing something where the players have NO context. Flashing a picture and saying they are "a race that lives on the astral sea" works for us. Sure. We're D&D geeks. We've been doing this for decades. But for someone without that experience? You're not exactly setting anyone's heart aflutter with that.
Aldarc
Legend
"It's a part of the universe that is about like combining outer space with heaven."
"Oh, cool. Okay. Got it."
Did you miss the part - which would not surprise me at all at this point - where I said that the GM and player can engage in a conversation through their questions? I'm not sure why, nor have you done a good job, in explaining how evocative language is required for communicating this sort of information. And when people don't know a term or thing, then you attempt to find a frame of reference that would potentially be more familiar for the person. Which is what normal people do in normal conversations about everything. I don't necessarily think the point is to get "anyone's heart aflutter" but to communicate the context and stakes in which their actions take place.
Hussar, my D&D group for the past few years was with four other people who had never played D&D before. I think that you underestimate, if not vastly exaggerate, the problem of communicating the basic ideas of the game. And we usually have a basic awareness of some cognitive contexts that our gaming group will likely have experienced.
Imaro
Legend
Yeah I'm going to go ahead and state that if the extent of your description for a climactic battle with an ancient dragon is... Big red lizard with wings that breathes fire... I'm not playing in your game (and if this is the way you've described everything up to this point we wont even get this far...). Doesnt matter what's at stake you'd be boring me and my players so much we wont care... so for me and those I play with some level of evocative description is necessary for rpg's.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
There is a reason why they say that a picture says a thousand words. Showing the picture is the equivalent of using that evocative language. It's just a shortcut.
Aldarc
Legend
And?
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
And what?
Aldarc
Legend
That's what I am asking you.
