A game that happens entirely through verbal communication

[Quasqueton]

Description of a spider lair (from a classic adventure module):
"Under a pile of leaves nearby is the skeleton of a victim, a hapless elf. Everything he bore has turned to rot and ruin, save a filthy shield which appears quite worthless (but cleaning and oiling will return it to +1 magic status)."


Scenario 1:
The Players don’t specifically say they are searching the area, so the DM doesn’t mention the pile of leaves. Since the DM didn’t describe the area, the Players think there’s nothing of note remaining, so the PCs move on. Both sides are expecting a prompt from the other to get/give more info.

Scenario 2:
The Players say they search the area, so the DM mentions the pile of leaves. The Players think that the pile of leaves is just a pile of leaves, because they assume that the DM would tell them what they found in/under the pile when they said they “search the area”. To the Players, “search the area” means they go through looking thoroughly and move things about; to the DM, “search the area” means they look around visually only (he’s waiting for them to specifically say they are moving/looking under the pile of leaves). The PCs leave the area.

Scenario 3:
The Players search the area, so the DM mentions the pile of leaves. The Players say they move the leaves and look through the pile. The DM tells them they find a skeleton. The Players assume the skeleton is just “naked”, and the PCs move on. The DM assumes that if they wanted more information, they’d ask for it; the Players assume that if there is more information, the DM would provide it automatically.

Scenario 4:
The Players search the area, so the DM says they find an elf skeleton under a pile of leaves. He says the skeleton’s gear is rotted and ruined; he doesn’t mention the shield specifically unless the Players ask. The DM assumes the shield is part of his gear description. The PCs move on.

Scenario 5:
The Players search the area, so the DM mentions the pile of leaves. The Players say they move the leaves and look through the pile. The DM tells them they find a skeleton. The Players ask for more detail about the skeleton, so the DM mentions that all his clothing and gear has turned to rot and ruin, and there is a worthless shield. The Players take the DM’s description at face value and just leave the worthless shield.

Scenario 6:
The Players search the area, so the DM mentions the pile of leaves. The Players say they move the leaves and look through the pile. The DM tells them they find a skeleton. The Players ask for more detail about the skeleton, so the DM mentions that all his clothing and gear has turned to rot and ruin, and there is a filthy shield. The Players, suspicious at the specific mention of a shield, investigate it closer. The DM says it is worthless. So the PCs leave it and move on.

Scenario 7:
The Players search the area, so the DM mentions the pile of leaves. The Players say they move the leaves and look through the pile. The DM tells them they find a skeleton. The Players ask for more detail about the skeleton, so the DM mentions that all his clothing and gear has turned to rot and ruin, and there is a filthy shield. The Players, suspicious at the specific mention of a shield, investigate it closer. The DM says it appears worthless. The Players, suspicious at the word “appears”, decide to take the shield. They eventually use detect magic on it, but because they haven’t first cleaned and oiled it, the DM says it isn’t magical. The Players trash the shield.

Scenario 8:
The Players search the area, so the DM mentions the pile of leaves. The Players say they move the leaves and look through the pile. The DM tells them they find a skeleton. The Players ask for more detail about the skeleton, so the DM mentions that all his clothing and gear has turned to rot and ruin, and there is a filthy shield. The Players, suspicious at the specific mention of a shield, investigate it closer. The DM says it appears worthless. The Players, suspicious at the word “appears”, decide to take the shield. The Players clean up the shield. They eventually use detect magic on it, but because they haven’t oiled it, the DM says it isn’t magical. They sell the shield for 1 gp. Maybe the Players don’t even understand “oiling” a shield – it has no moving parts, those without experience maintaining metal objects wouldn’t know anything about oiling in this context. And the DM was going strictly by what the module text said.

Scenario 9:
The Players search the area, so the DM mentions the pile of leaves. The Players say they move the leaves and look through the pile. The DM tells them they find a skeleton. The Players ask for more detail about the skeleton, so the DM mentions that all his clothing and gear has turned to rot and ruin, and there is a filthy shield. The Players, suspicious at the specific mention of a shield, investigate it closer. The DM says it appears worthless. The Players, suspicious at the word “appears”, decide to take the shield. They eventually use detect magic on it, and the DM says it radiates magic. The PCs use the shield, but the DM never takes the +1 into account for their AC because they still haven’t cleaned and oiled it yet (essentially it is a magic shield but provides no game mechanic bonus).

Scenario 10:
The DM mentions the PCs can see a skeleton and shield under a pile of leaves as standard description before the Players say they are searching. The DM assumes that “under a pile of leaves” does not mean hidden or concealed. The Players think it is just window dressing/flavor, and dismiss it. The PCs move on.

Scenario 11:
The DM mentions the PCs can see a skeleton and shield under a pile of leaves as standard description before the Players say they are searching. The DM assumes that “under a pile of leaves” does not mean hidden or concealed. The Players investigate the skeleton and shield. The DM’s description includes mention of the filthy shield, so the Players look closer. The DM mentions that it appears worthless as it is, but maybe it could be cleaned up. The Players clean it up, and the DM assumes this action includes oiling it. When the DM describes how nice the shield looks now, the PCs use detect magic. The DM tells them it is magical.

Scenario 12:
The DM mentions the skeleton in rotted and ruined gear, and points out there is a filthy shield that can probably be cleaned up. The PCs clean up the shield and the DM tells them it is a +1 shield.

Scenario 13:
The DM tells the Players they find, “Under a pile of leaves nearby is the skeleton of a victim, a hapless elf. Everything he bore has turned to rot and ruin, save a filthy shield which appears quite worthless (but cleaning and oiling will return it to +1 magic status).” The Players clean up and oil the shield, and now have a +1 shield.


Each of the above scenarios are arguably legitimate (and in some cases, actual) interpretations, styles, approaches, and/or expectations of how a DM runs a game and how Players think. I just did this as a thought experiment prompted by reading the passage quoted at the top of this post. I’ve played with DMs and Players for whom many of the above scenarios would be normal. When you think about all the varied interpretations, styles, approaches, and/or expectations we all have with our gaming, it’s kind of a wonder that we actually manage to have fun.

Quasqueton

 

[el-remmen]

Jeez! That was endless!

My own approach would be closest to Scenario 9 - but even that is not quite it.

Below is how I'd do it (with changes in italics):

The Players search the area, so the DM mentions the pile of leaves. The Players say they move the leaves and look through the pile. The DM tells them they find a skeleton and describes its rotted gear (including the "apparently worthless" sheild). The Players, suspicious at the specific mention of a shield, investigate it closer. The DM says (again) it appears worthless. The Players, suspicious at the word “appears”, decide to take the shield. They eventually use detect magic on it, and the DM says it radiates magic. The PCs use the shield, but the DM takes the +1 into account for their AC because a dirty magical item is still magical regardless of what the module says.

 

[Umbran]

When you think about all the varied interpretations, styles, approaches, and/or expectations we all have with our gaming, it’s kind of a wonder that we actually manage to have fun.

Well, yes. But this is why there have been some improvements in mechanics. Today, for example, the pattern probably ought to be more like:

Scenario 14: The players search the area. The GM makes a Search check, and bases further description on the results of that check.

 

[Hussar]

I'd probably go with #11 most of the time. Not being a weapon nut, I have no idea what is involved in cleaning a shield, but, I also assume that the character's do. Assuming oiling isn't too much of a stretch for me.

 

[heirodule]

The players search the area

DC 10: They find leaves and rubbish

DC 15: They find, under a pile of leaves, a skelton with (DC 10 appraise check) worthless equipment, and a useable shield. The PCs detect magic, and receive 'faint' A DC 20 Knowledge (Arcana) check reminds the PCs that some unusual magical shields require maintenance to work properly, and cleaning and oiling it might be in order.

 

[Quasqueton]

Jeez! That was endless!

And I could have written more. The permutations of each are numerous.

Quasqueton

 

[ken-ichi]

This was a pretty interesting read. Some of the versions obviously don't mesh with my play style and a few actually irritated me, notably ones like 1,3,4. Mainly because the DM is basically the eyes and ears of the party and is failing them in that role. I don't think the players should be forced to play 20 questions with the DM to get a visual of a room that they are entering.

My version would be something like this:
As the Players enter the room the DM mentions the pile of leaves. If other locations have contained similar piles of leaves you can make an off hand remark about the continuing presence of the piles, perhaps a witty comment about needing a new groundskeeper. The Players say they move the leaves or search the room and thus look through the pile. The DM tells them they find a skeleton and describes its rotted gear (including the "apparently worthless" sheild). The DM can both give a slight clue that the shield is special and also hide the clue by describing several pieces of the rotten equipment (the chainmail and sword of the skeleton have mostly crumbled away in rust, the leather of his boots and scabbard are moldy scraps crumbling away to dust at the slightest touch). By describing other equipment it draws the focus away from the shield, but at the same time gives the players info that the shield is special due to it not being destroyed like the rest of the equipment.
The Players, suspicious at the specific mention of a shield (and it only being filthy instead of rusted away), investigate it closer. The DM says (again) it appears worthless (I would probably ask for a Craft (metalworking or armory) or Appraise check (DC5) to notice that it is functional and (DC15) even a finely crafted item despite its filthy appearance and needs a little cleanup to be in tip top shape, magic items must be masterwork). The Players, suspicious at the word “appears”, or noticing that it is a masterwork item decide to take the shield. They eventually use detect magic on it, and the DM says it radiates magic (the lingering type because there is no active bonus on it).
The PCs use the shield, but do not get the +1 into account for their AC until the item is cleaned (I don't like disregarding text in a module just because the rules don't say things work like that. They are a great way of instilling some bits of mystery and flavor to the game.) I would assume that a character will clean the shield if they continue to use it after camping for the night, so if the character does not actively clean it when he grabs the shield, upon nightly maintenance he will clean it. I would probably have the shield glimmer a bit when the cleaning is finished and the item regains its bonus.

I think this is the most fair way to run it IMO.
The players need to be told about the leaves. It is an obvious visible thing that is not hidden from view.
The shield must be mentioned if they are searching the leaves. I don't think anyone considers a skeleton to automatically include a shield. When the skeleton's gear is described as rotted away the shield has to be mentioned as not being ruined as it is not, but rather just filthy.
Obtaining the shield still requires that the players do several things:
1. Actually search the room.
2. Think a filthy shield is worth taking a closer look at.
3. Make the skill checks to notice that the shield is functional and even of good quality.
4. Use the shield for longer than 1 day or actively state they are cleaning it to regain the bonus.
Of course a detect magic will basically give them a huge pointer saying take me. I think that if this is a problem, then the problem may lie more with detect magic than with the presented scenario.

 

[KB9JMQ]

My game would be most like Senario 11.
A room description would mention the leaves, a search would find the skeleton and a filthy but well made shield that would radiate magic if detection is used.
I would also assume the cleaning process during that nights camp would include oiling.

 

[sniffles]

I really enjoyed all your different possible permutations of the situation. It really emphasizes how language can be interpreted differently by each individual. It ties into a discussion I've had many times with one of my gaming friends, specifically over the use of miniatures. My friend doesn't really like using miniatures because he feels players attach too much importance to them and think of them as too concrete an example of appearances. I disagree because minis can give players something visual to attach a description to.

If someone tells me "You walk into a room that is 100' long" I don't necessarily have a concrete concept of how big that is - what I see in my mind's eye may be completely different than what the GM and other players visualize. I may be imagining a truly vast chamber while the player sitting next to me just envisions a room a little bigger than his living room. We both know conceptually how big 100' is, but imagining that in relation to an equally imaginary game character is more difficult and relies on a lot of other factors that can differ widely from one individual to another.

Your analysis points out how much individual experience influences our responses. If a player doesn't know what oiling means in relation to a shield, how will he respond to that part of the description? That's where the jokes about attacking gazebos come from; we don't all have the same vocabulary skills. No one can ever assume that what the speaker says is exactly accurate to what the listener hears.

You're right, it is a wonder we ever manage to have any fun.

 

[RFisher]

Description of a spider lair (from a classic adventure module):
"Under a pile of leaves nearby is the skeleton of a victim, a hapless elf. Everything he bore has turned to rot and ruin, save a filthy shield which appears quite worthless (but cleaning and oiling will return it to +1 magic status)."

Sorry, I didn't read all the permutations. It's too late & they all started to run together...

Me as DM: (I DM classic D&D--no spot or search checks.)

The players will probably have to actually say that they are searching the lair before I mention the pile of leaves. Saying that they are searching is enough.

Once I've told them about it, the players will have to actually say that they are investigating the pile of leaves. I will then tell them about the elf skeleton with rotted & ruined gear.

Now, this part gets a bit tricky. (I don't know that I care for the author's choice of making the magic shield appear worthless.) I'll probably wait for them to specifically state that they are seaching the skeleton more thoroughly. At this point, I'll tell them that they find a shield that looks to be in good shape--just needs some cleaning. Especially if a fighter is involved in the search.

I guess it comes down to the fact that it's worth investigating anything I bother mentioning in a description until I say, "You find nothing". It's seem to work pretty well in practice.

It may help that I'm awful at descriptions. Mine tend to be short & unelaborate.