Daggerheart "Description on Demand" a GM DON'T

[BruceWright]

I love Daggerheart and its ethos of "Ask they players questions and incorporate the answers." I immediately gravitated toward it and have found is useful and fun.
But when discussing Daggerheart on a forum, one person was all "Oh, it has Description on Demand? That's a hard no, I'm out."

I hadn't heard the (slightly loaded) term "Description on Demand, but I looked it up and found Justin Alexander's blog post declaring this technique one of his "GM DON'Ts."

---

Description-on-demand tends to be a fad that periodically cycles through the RPG meme-sphere. When it does so, the general perception seems to be that every player thinks this is the greatest thing since chocolate-dipped donuts.

So let’s start there: This is not true. Many players do love it. But many players DO NOT. In fact, a lot of players hate it. There are a significant number of players for whom this is antithetical to the entire reason they want to play an RPG and it will literally ruin the game for them.

I’m one of those players. I’ve quit games because of it and have zero regrets for having done so.
​

---

He talks about this being immersion breaking because it requires a shift in the POV. I disagree, it doesn't necessarily. Asking a player "what do you see that's different about the bark on these trees?" is just that player imagining seeing something, and describing it.

As I said, I was discussing the game online, and I described a scene where an NPC asks a PC where they got their sword. This felt like a normal interaction that wouldn't be out of place in any D&D game I've played. But the person, another GM, said "SEE??! That's Description on Demand. If I did that at my table there'd be 5 minutes of awkward silence and stammering. You're putting them on the spot. You can't expect players to be able to do that!" I'm like "your player can't come up with something like 'from my father' or 'I found it'?"

Now I recognize that different tables have different styles. But reading the Alexandrian blog and with the interaction with this GM, it sounds like to some people this is WRONG WRONG WRONG and if you ask about someone's sword you better be ready for some quitting-the-game level blowback.

What have your experiences been? Do you think it's immersion-breaking?

​

 

[Reynard]

First of all,we should not take anything the Alexandrian writes particularly seriously.

Second, asking players to fill in details, either through description or world building, CAN break immersion for certain players. You kind of have to know your players and whether they care about immersion in that way.

When I use the technique, I am less concerned about immersion than I am about engagement. A player describing what they see or a bit of backstory may not be immersed,but they are definitely engaged. And that is worth a lot more IMO.

 

[zarionofarabel]

As a GM, I am always "on the spot" to provide Description On Demand. Multiple times per scene usually. Why not offload some of that burden to the players? As both a player and a GM I like it, as it really helps foster the whole "collaborative" fiction creation thing. Though I will admit that many players don't like doing it, as they either feel they are not imaginative or creative enough, or they don't want to "mess with" the GM's vision of the world.

 

[nyvinter]

And if you're uncertain, ask your players about things that their characters would know. Don't do "what do you see in the chest?" but rather "you know this person you stumbled onto, you grew up together. Describe them from your point of view."

 

[Reynard]

And if you're uncertain, ask your players about things that their characters would know. Don't do "what do you see in the chest?" but rather "you know this person you stumbled onto, you grew up together. Describe them from your point of view."

I am a big fan of introducing minor NPCs that way. Immediate connection.

 

[darjr]

It’s complicated.

Some players I’ve found do not like it. Mostly because it feels like being put on the spot, and some folks don’t like that nor play to be singled out to perform. I get it.

I can really enjoy it. There is a point where I’d rather not though. I think DH is nice cuause it works either way and doesn’t demand to much of it but I think would work with a lot of it.

I’ve heard of players losing a bit of their agency in some games but I think when that happens it’s gone to far.

I can see it breaking immersion. And if it did that for me just being done at the table I’d have issues with it too. Which would be too bad imho.

 

[UnplayedRanger]

I don't think I've ever been "immersed" in a ttrpg, so I don't really get it when peopel talk about distrupting it. I have been engaged in a game, and "description on demand" certainly would get/keep me engaged in what was happening at the moment.

Seems like one of those things you could/should discuss at Session Zero.

 

[overgeeked]

As always, talk to your players. Find out if they're into something like this.

A great way to split the difference is have the players come up with a list of things they want to inject into the game. If they're the involved-backstory or goal-oriented types, then this should be real easy. A list of NPCs, a list of clues, a list of objects, etc.

Have them prep this stuff ahead of time so they don't feel put on the spot. In my experience that is the part they mostly bounce off of, the "on demand" aspect without any warning or head's up.

 

[Arilyn]

I go with players' preferences. 13th Age has good advice. Ask for input but if no one has an idea you can step in and provide the detail. Players shouldn't feel pressured or put on the spot but input is welcome.

Daggerheart is flexible, as it can work both ways. My table is a combination. Some days there's great input and creativity, other days not so much. As GM, I will add narration with hope or fear, other times it's just the token.

 

[darjr]

One thing I def wouldn’t make it a hard and fast NO.