GM DESCRIPTION: NARRATION OR CONVERSATION?

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah but one person can certainly be a catalyst. And that's the last I'll say on it.

Yes, but we are all only responsible for our own posts, not how people choose to react to them

 

[Aldarc]

I got blocked by him when I pointed out that one of his stances was metagaming. You all better watch out.

I got blocked by him when I didn't roll over when he argued that Fate wasn't roleplaying game. (His issue also had to do with metagaming. )

 

[Maxperson]

I got blocked by him when I didn't roll over when he argued that Fate wasn't roleplaying game. (His issue also had to do with metagaming. )

Yeah. In the thread where he blocked me, he had already accused me of metagaming in an instance that wasn't actually metagaming, then gone on to describe himself metagaming. When I pointed it out, he got all bent out of shape that anyone would accuse him of metagaming and blocked me.

 

[Hussar]

LOL. So, essentially, all Saelorn is seeing of this thread is [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] talking to himself? Unless [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] somehow avoided the block hammer. ROTFLMAO. That has to be the WEIRDEST thread to see.

Ok, so, yeah, [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] and [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], I'd put things like diction, organization, that sort of stuff, under the umbrella of "presentation". How you get the information from A to B, rather than the content of that information itself. Now, at that point, sure, I can see a more conversational style being one way of doing it. Less formal, less formulaic.

And, again, it's going to really, really depend on the game you are playing. Some games will necessitate a more "narrative" style just to evoke particular moods and tones.

I just find that when I do that, and don't work from well structured notes (or boxed text) I forget stuff. I miss details. The other issue I have is pacing. Which, honestly, is my own bugaboo. As someone running the game, I want to get as much information into the player's hands as quickly and efficiently as possible. Which means that I need to organize narration to avoid questions from the players. If I get all the information to them, they won't need to ask many questions, which bogs the game down.

Sure, I can just say, "Yes, you enter the room, there's a bed, a desk and a chest at the foot of the bed". That certainly fits a "conversational" style no? But, IME, that just means that I have to spend the next several minutes detailing each element because it's not enough information for the players to make any sort of informed decision about. So, I use boxed text, like this one from the recent Saltmarsh module:

Rubbish is scattered around what was once a fine guest bedroom; there is evidence of rodent infestation, and webs hang in the corners. A four-poster bed standsagainst the wall opposite the fireplace. Its woodwork is worm-ridden, and the curtains that once screened the bed are torn and stained. There is no bed linen, but the bed is mostly intact.

That, coupled with the fact that I run over virtual tabletop meaning they have an actual map to look at as they explore, gets all the pertinent information into the player's hands and nicely evokes the tone of a scary, haunted house. Would we agree that the boxed text I quoted is narrative style, rather than conversational?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sure, I can just say, "Yes, you enter the room, there's a bed, a desk and a chest at the foot of the bed". That certainly fits a "conversational" style no? But, IME, that just means that I have to spend the next several minutes detailing each element because it's not enough information for the players to make any sort of informed decision about. So, I use boxed text, like this one from the recent Saltmarsh module:



That, coupled with the fact that I run over virtual tabletop meaning they have an actual map to look at as they explore, gets all the pertinent information into the player's hands and nicely evokes the tone of a scary, haunted house. Would we agree that the boxed text I quoted is narrative style, rather than conversational?

yes, I would agree that is more narrative in style, and it is the thing I tend to avoid. My notes are never in boxed text form. I have notes on what is there, who is there, what people want, and I have connective tissue between those elements and other elements. But I never write out a description like that. I will occasionally be atmospheric, but not in a 'narrative way'. By which I mean, I don't see myself as narrating an ongoing story. I see myself as helping the players explore. Part of this is my own frustration with more linear and narrative approaches back in the early 2000s, where I just hit a wall of feeling like by following all the standard GM advice (particularly the WOTC 3E GM advice) at the time, that I might as well just hand the players my notes. It wasn't till I started experimenting with the older modules and systems I had cut my teeth on, and re-read the 1E DMG, that I started to find an approach that entertained me as the GM. For myself, a big part of it is I don't want anything to feel predetermined, and boxed text like that feels very predetermined to me (like a narrative description just waiting for the players to show up and trigger). I want my locations to feel like they are living places.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I just find that when I do that, and don't work from well structured notes (or boxed text) I forget stuff. I miss details. The other issue I have is pacing. Which, honestly, is my own bugaboo. As someone running the game, I want to get as much information into the player's hands as quickly and efficiently as possible. Which means that I need to organize narration to avoid questions from the players. If I get all the information to them, they won't need to ask many questions, which bogs the game down.

Pacing is something I don't even care about as a GM. I should say, dramatic pacing. I don't care for doing dramatic pacing. Obviously if everyone is twiddling their thumbs, I will try to keep the game moving. But I don't worry about pacing in terms of the flow of combat (i.e. getting the right level of rising action and a sense of things building). If the players shank the villain when he turns to open a desk drawer, and that legitimately gives them the win, then I go with it, even if it is the first five minutes of the adventure. This is something I've had players thank me for and comment on. Not all players like it. But there is something refreshing about adjudicating in a way that lets the dice fall where they may and doesn't account for concerns like 'is it too early for this boss to be defeated or this battle to be won'.

 

[Bedrockgames]

LOL. So, essentially, all Saelorn is seeing of this thread is @Bedrockgames talking to himself? Unless @Imaro somehow avoided the block hammer. ROTFLMAO. That has to be the WEIRDEST thread to see.

I don't know. Lol. I have a couple of people who have blocked me as well (which is their right if they don't like my posts). But it creates some strange effects like the post counts being different (which led to some serious misunderstanding in a previous thread when one poster tried directing me to a particular number post---which was different for me than him).

 

[Hussar]

Pacing is something I don't even care about as a GM. I should say, dramatic pacing. I don't care for doing dramatic pacing. Obviously if everyone is twiddling their thumbs, I will try to keep the game moving. But I don't worry about pacing in terms of the flow of combat (i.e. getting the right level of rising action and a sense of things building). If the players shank the villain when he turns to open a desk drawer, and that legitimately gives them the win, then I go with it, even if it is the first five minutes of the adventure. This is something I've had players thank me for and comment on. Not all players like it. But there is something refreshing about adjudicating in a way that lets the dice fall where they may and doesn't account for concerns like 'is it too early for this boss to be defeated or this battle to be won'.

Ah, now, there, I think is one of the bigger divides that's going on. For me, while dramatic pacing is one thing (I'll let them shank the villain too), but, in general game pacing is something I've very, very conscious of. Gaming, as it is, tends to have a lot of down time and anything I can do to speed things up is good IMO. Which means that things like boxed text, for example, are a huge time saver for me. I'm not spending a bunch of time on answering detail questions, nor am I wasting everyone's time as I stumble and trip over my own bloody tongue trying to get the words out - which happens more often than I care to admit.

As it is with all things, it's all down to priorities.

 

[pemerton]

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."

This is also a major stumbling block for me.

Of course word choice matters in communication. So does tone. Etc. Someone has given the example of sarcasm in this or some other recent thread, and that is often a matter of tone.

That's all part-and-parcel of conversation.

 

[pemerton]

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

A lot of authors and publishers seem to think so!