GM DESCRIPTION: NARRATION OR CONVERSATION?

[Aldarc]

This was the division that existed in the thread in question. Not saying it has to be one or the other.

I feel like the actual discussion in that thread was about the primary GM role that new gamemasters should focus on learning: scene-framing for player agency or literary performance. The whole conversational vs. literary narration bit was a red herring conversation that we unwittingly got roped into when literary performance camp asked us to conceive of GMing as a conversation without the literary performance. We could and did, but that was still not good enough, and so here we are.

That said, I tend to view most roleplaying as a constant state of negotiating the fiction. This is generally done conversationally between GM and players with mechanics often serving the function of a mediator of narrative outcome resolution. Sure, narrative prose can potentially add to the immersion of the game, but it is a non-causal relationship, so I regard it as a secondary concern when compared to the importance of scene-framing for players and as a player. What ultimately matters, IMHO, is that players understand what the GM is trying to communicate, the stakes of the scene, and how they can engage the fiction.

 

[Imaro]

I feel like the actual discussion in that thread was about the primary GM role that new gamemasters should focus on learning: scene-framing for player agency or literary performance. The whole conversational vs. literary narration bit was a red herring conversation that we unwittingly got roped into when literary performance camp asked us to conceive of GMing as a conversation without the literary performance. We could and did, but that was still not good enough, and so here we are.

That said, I tend to view most roleplaying as a constant state of negotiating the fiction. This is generally done conversationally between GM and players with mechanics often serving the function of a mediator of narrative outcome resolution. Sure, narrative prose can potentially add to the immersion of the game, but it is a non-causal relationship, so I regard it as a secondary concern when compared to the importance of scene-framing for players and as a player. What ultimately matters, IMHO, is that players understand what the GM is trying to communicate, the stakes of the scene, and how they can engage the fiction.

Can we leave the what's most important/what's core debate in the thread it started in please?

 

[Maxperson]

As a player, I prefer short narration followed by interactive for additional details.

As a GM, I try to be more evocative than descriptive, when practical, which reduces the needed amount of narration, and increases the player investment...

This was the consensus of the non-conversational side in the other thread. Something short and evocative to describe the room and mood, and then questions/statements if necessary.

 

[Aldarc]

Can we leave the what's most important/what's core debate in the thread it started in please?

Sure, but it does inform how I contextualize the conversation of this thread.

I don't necessarily think, for example, in terms of a personal preference for "conversational" vs. "literary" narration, but, instead, in terms of communicating what's important in the game fiction for players to engage the scene. The stylistic aesthetic is of lesser importance than the pragmatics. This matter can certainly be either/or/neither in regards to conversational vs. literary narration.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I am curious what other posters think about how a GM should sound when describing things to players.

How a GM should sound? I think players might have a preference, and GMs have an individual style, but you know we get into all sorts of trouble when anyone starts telling others how they should or should not do anything.

 

[Hussar]

Heh. When the premise of the thread is clearly stated, we actually get to discuss the issue rather than spend 15 pages debating what the conversation is actually about. So, for that, thank you [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION].

I'm pretty much in the "it depends on the game" camp. I generally find that word choice is going to be necessary as a DM/GM simply because it's virtually impossible to separate running a game from any level of performance. We always choose specific language to fit the game, genre, mood and whatnot, which is, IMO, going to nudge things away from the conversational and towards the prose. This came up in the other thread where words like "wield" were used. That's a deliberate word choice for a fantasy RPG. You'd never use it in an SF RPG, for example. Han Solo wields his blaster? I don't think so. If we're playing a fantasy RPG, we're going to draw on fantasy language, probably subconsciously. If we play a modern RPG, our language is going to change.

Note, I'm not referring to game dependent language. That's obviously something else entirely. But, the language we use during the game, that isn't "game language" is going to shift depending on the game we're playing. For the most part, it's going to be a pretty subconscious choice but, it really is going to be there.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm pretty much in the "it depends on the game" camp. I generally find that word choice is going to be necessary as a DM/GM simply because it's virtually impossible to separate running a game from any level of performance. We always choose specific language to fit the game, genre, mood and whatnot, which is, IMO, going to nudge things away from the conversational and towards the prose. This came up in the other thread where words like "wield" were used. That's a deliberate word choice for a fantasy RPG. You'd never use it in an SF RPG, for example. Han Solo wields his blaster? I don't think so. If we're playing a fantasy RPG, we're going to draw on fantasy language, probably subconsciously. If we play a modern RPG, our language is going to change.

Just like in the other thread, you continually failed (miserably) to demonstrate that words like "wield" are non-conversational or "a deliberate word choice for a fantasy RPG." IMO, the phrase "wielding a gun", for example, is conversational language. I had even demonstrated that you can have prose with a young child's vocabulary while others indicated that some people exercise a larger vocabulary in their conversations, so vocabulary size and diction should not be equated to prose or non-conversational language. It seems that you never learn and just repeat your same mistakes over. Too bad.

I also don't think that something becomes narrative prose just because we use word fields that are more common in some contexts over others. "Halbard" is not a common word of conversation either, but the GM telling players "he charges at you with his halberd" is not necessarily prose either, but can be delivered with a conversational tone or manner.

 

[Imaro]

What I'm saying is much more important than how I say it.

I disagree with this statement. How you say something, how its presented, how it's interpreted/received can, IMO, be just as important as what you are saying.

Edit: To clarify... if your group had no reference point for the two characters you used... you would have to find a different means of presenting in order to convey what your content is correctly.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I disagree with this statement. How you say something, how its presented, how it's interpreted/received can, IMO, be just as important as what you are saying.

I guess my concern with this approach, at a fundamental level, is it leads to setting a bar where only people who talk like 'nerds' can sit in the GM chair, or even play. It is actually one of the big hurdles to getting people interested in the game that I encounter when talking to people outside of gaming. We tend to interpret intellect by how 'well spoken' a GM is and by their vocabulary. I would rather see a GM speaking comfortably in their natural voice, largely for this reason. I also think there is a degree of empathy lacking when we all adopt the 'how you say something is just as important as what you say'. I've noticed this more and more over the years where people don't seem to feel any need to try to understand what a person is really trying to say and instead focus on the literalness of how they say it.

 

[Imaro]

I guess my concern with this approach, at a fundamental level, is it leads to setting a bar where only people who talk like 'nerds' can sit in the GM chair, or even play. It is actually one of the big hurdles to getting people interested in the game that I encounter when talking to people outside of gaming. We tend to interpret intellect by how 'well spoken' a GM is and by their vocabulary. I would rather see a GM speaking comfortably in their natural voice, largely for this reason. I also think there is a degree of empathy lacking when we all adopt the 'how you say something is just as important as what you say'. I've noticed this more and more over the years where people don't seem to feel any need to try to understand what a person is really trying to say and instead focus on the literalness of how they say it.

No it doesnt
Now let's clarify something first... I dont like or enjoy narrative prose in my game is a different and much more reasonable argument than... How I present something doesnt matter. One is subjective and much more narrow. The other, IMO, is a much larger claim which IMO is ludicrous. You may not like it but it is what it is.

Edit: Also how are Barakka and Shredder not "nerd" or at least niche references? What if I dont have the same context you do for conversation? Doesnt that also impose limitations?