Daggerheart "Description on Demand" a GM DON'T

[Micah Sweet]

What about my example of an NPC saying to a player character "wow, that's a nice sword you have there. Where did you get it? (assuming it's not been established in a previous adventure). That feels well within the PC's world to me, and yet I heard a hard no from that GM about it.

If it is specifically something the PC would know about their own life, and it isn't previously established in play or my notes, then I would be fine with it. But I likely still wouldn't ask the player to describe it unless I knew they wanted to.

 

[zakael19]

A thing to remember here is we're talking about Daggerheart - a game which very clearly makes it evident over and over in the text that the GM and players are collaborators and contributors at all times. It's built with the assumption that players are doing joint worldbuilding to a degree right up front, which continues throughout play with prompts and "paint the scene" techniques. It intends for the backstory elements the players bring in via connection + background questions to directly inform elements of the story and the way scenes are framed out.

Are there degrees of how this plays out at teh table? Yeah sure. But the design is saying over and over "hey, if you don't like this, probably not the best game for you ok?"

 

[Micah Sweet]

A thing to remember here is we're talking about Daggerheart - a game which very clearly makes it evident over and over in the text that the GM and players are collaborators and contributors at all times. It's built with the assumption that players are doing joint worldbuilding to a degree right up front, which continues throughout play with prompts and "paint the scene" techniques. It intends for the backstory elements the players bring in via connection + background questions to directly inform elements of the story and the way scenes are framed out.

Are there degrees of how this plays out at teh table? Yeah sure. But the design is saying over and over "hey, if you don't like this, probably not the best game for you ok?"

Yeah, I would never run Daggerheart anyway. I would play though, at least once.

 

[kermit4karate]

Daggerheart builds in a degree of player-contribution as a core expectation. It's in the Player's Agenda/Principles, and the GM stuff as well. As @nyvinter said, the most "immersion" promoting way to do this is to ask the character how something relates to their background or knowledge. As an example, when the Sorcerer in my game used their innate detect magic ability I turned to them and went "yeah, you can detect a lingering old enchantment on these walls - but there's something deeper. How can you tell there's a thread of Magelord magic coming from somewhere within?"

They're not necessarily asserting facts about the world that "cross the line," they're defining what it feels like to their character for this thing to be true. It does help to give them something to crystalize off of (and I know some of my players are helped by a bit of a "pick list" to give them a springboard).

I haven't personally had a player dislike it. I'm super freaking up front about how the game expects this to be a core bit of play, and literally every player I have volunteering to try the game has highlighted it as a core draw.

This seems very kludgy to me as a core part of the rules. I can definitely understand about asking a player a leading / guiding question from time to time to help them get the gameplay on track, or to keep them on the right track, but to expect DMs to be able to do this routinely and do it well is asking too much IMO. I've DM'd a thousand hours and would struggle to do this.

 

[zakael19]

This seems very kludgy to me as a core part of the rules. I can definitely understand about asking a player a leading / guiding question from time to time to help them get the gameplay on track, or to keep them on the right track, but to expect DMs to be able to do this routinely and do it well is asking too much IMO. I've DM'd a thousand hours and would struggle to do this.

I can enthusiastically tell you it's not .

You're not doing this constantly mind you - but if there's something in the scene that speaks to a character's class/background/ancestry/etc, you can bet I'm going to try and remember to give them space to contribute. Same thing during combat, filling in the cinematic bits around how abilities and dodging etc play out.

 

[Dire Bare]

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?

​

Huh. It's definitely a trend on the rise, beyond DaggerHeart, I think.

I've been moving more towards this style as a DM over the past few years, in bits and pieces . . . and most of my players don't seem on board! They don't get angry or anything, just confused when I try to give them a worldbuilding prompt, scaffolded or not. I definitely get a "Isn't that your job?" kind of reaction!

We're about to start a DaggerHeart campaign run by another in the group, who has been hesitant to jump on the prompts I've given in our D&D game . . . should be interesting to see how this goes . . .

 

[kermit4karate]

I can enthusiastically tell you it's not .

You're not doing this constantly mind you - but if there's something in the scene that speaks to a character's class/background/ancestry/etc, you can bet I'm going to try and remember to give them space to contribute. Same thing during combat, filling in the cinematic bits around how abilities and dodging etc play out.

Fair enough. I think I understand. It doesn't sound much different than a D&D DM referring to a player's background in gameplay then, right? Like, "Being an elf from the Forest of Danewood, you're deeply familiar with druidic runes. Do you think these symbols could be related?" Is that what it's like?

 

[kermit4karate]

Huh. It's definitely a trend on the rise, beyond DaggerHeart, I think.

I've been moving more towards this style as a DM over the past few years, in bits and pieces . . . and most of my players don't seem on board! They don't get angry or anything, just confused when I try to give them a worldbuilding prompt, scaffolded or not. I definitely get a "Isn't that your job?" kind of reaction!

We're about to start a DaggerHeart campaign run by another in the group, who has been hesitant to jump on the prompts I've given in our D&D game . . . should be interesting to see how this goes . . .

That's what I'm thinking! Definitely need to see it in action one of these days.

I can see it more clearly in my mind's eye if I think of the players around the table as performers in a troupe, basically actors on a stage in an improv play, but that's a pretty specific TTRPG niche. A lot of players aren't interested in working that hard at the table.

 

[zakael19]

Fair enough. I think I understand. It doesn't sound much different than a D&D DM referring to a player's background in gameplay then, right? Like, "Being an elf from the Forest of Danewood, you're deeply familiar with druidic runes. Do you think these symbols could be related?" Is that what it's like?

I’d say it’s more like “as an elf from the forest of Danewood, what about these runes makes you think they’re related to the druids circles you’ve seen” or something. Your question is a yes/no, what you actually want to do is get the players to “paint the scene” and help fill in the details. When everybody gets used to this and enthusiastic, I get answers that lead to way cooler descriptions then I could manage on my own.

 

[BruceWright]

It may help to disentangle some responses. I see these as different issues:

1. Nervousness about extemporizing in front of others
2. Ability to extemporize but not wanting to or enjoying to when playing as a PC
3. Ability to extemporize but dissatisfied with the results to the game in substance
4. Ability to extemporize but dissatisfied with the results to the game in immersion/vibes
5. Philosophically opposed to the concept*

(And off course, multiple or none of these might apply to any particular individual)

*example, Justin Alexander:

To sum up, the reason description-on-demand makes the GM Don’t List is because:

• If that’s not what a player wants, it’s absolutely terrible.
• If it is what a player wants, it’s a terrible way of achieving it.