Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wild Gazebo" data-source="post: 6672527" data-attributes="member: 24413">I agree completely.  But, I can't ignore the obvious enjoyment it brings out in others...so it is a balancing act that I manage group to group.  Yes, I see what you mean...and even I have been jarred in a similar fashion.  Though, as a GM, I welcome a player asserting, or reasserting, their players reaction because it speaks to a higher degree of investment in the game (and I'm able to learn how to communicate better with the player).  I look at emotion as a subtle tool of manipulation rather than an authoritative stance.  People are very used to hearing judgment in simple expository (unfortunately so) and tend to let it wash by without comment.  It goes against every fiber in my body to use loaded emotion and cliche in my writing but I can't help notice the success it brings during role-playing sessions.  It becomes a tool for motivation.  By hinting at emotion, or possible emotion (players are free to correct you), the GM can lure, hide, agitate, pacify or even confound a player's attitude toward a scene in a way that a descriptive narrative tends to fall short.  And that is really what I think I'm edging toward:  the ability to keep things moving, getting the players invested and eliciting action more than waiting for it.  I guess emotion has become my clumsy shorthand...but, like I said, perhaps I'm just too lazy.Yes, it is easy to be vague.  Perhaps I was being a bit too glib.  The lack of precise expository detail is needed for a couple reasons and should be paired with a couple of other tools.  First, I think brevity is important to keep games flowing.  There was a time when I typed out or even borrowed long narratives describing my world, my NPCs, my locations or even my politics.  Even the greatest orators have to watch peoples eyes glaze over after the first few seconds.  This can be dealt with through cadence, tone, posture or even volume; but, in a game, I have found interaction far exceeds these tools.  If you have a large amount of narrative that 'needs' to be communicated (this need has completely disappeared for me) you can create breaks with questions, create dialogue or even use props.  Second, as I stated before (and you are worried about) it allows a type of co-creation between the GM and the players (losing a bit of control is also something I have gravitated toward as I age) that, I feel, invests the players more...assuming they ask questions.  Which is the crux of it.  In order for this to work motivation has to be established.  So, I pair my lack of detail with emotional undertones and, whenever I can, a sense of urgency.  This doesn't have to be straight conflict.  These types of situations can be created by simply asking each player what their character is feeling or thinking as opposed to what their character is doing.  A quick summation of what the players have stated (a surprisingly effective tool) another, perhaps more acute, description and then off toward character actions.  Don't underestimate the power of a weak emotional descriptor when speaking to a group of people...it is surprisingly effective.    As for the meta gaming, yes, every GM will have to hone their chops.  I distinctly remember being on guard whenever a room had more than a sentence of description or being wary of any NPC that had more than a few lines; but, these are easily addressed if one is willing to spend the time.  Hell, I used to go out of my way to create lovable NPCs just so I could kill them for story motivation...pretty blunt (though it has been quite effective for a couple of authors now).  I think this is in the area of a tool in the hands of a beginner as opposed to a master:  we all have to spend the time if we want to get close to that master level.</blockquote>

Verification