Daggerheart "Description on Demand" a GM DON'T

[Kromanjon]

Very interesting reading this thread and it’s made me aware of something I’ve only started doing since DMing for new people.

I would never ask a player to describe something that I have added to the world. I would always expect that to be my job.

However I do regularly ask players ‘what would your character think about X’ or ‘How would your character feel seeing this for the first time’. Essentially how would their characters react on an intellectual or emotional level. Particularly if I think their characters reaction would have an interesting insight. I find it helps to add to the roleplaying, intrigue and mystery elements of the game. Particularly when playing online and not able to see each other.

I’ll also ask players about what they would like their knowledge on a subject to be based on how they view their character. “There is the Four Seasons Coach house, would any of your characters have travelled on the Four Seasons coach before?. I’d then tailor my description to their answer,

So I put folks on the spot. But in a way that hopefully doesn’t embarrass them. What do folks think… is it acceptable? Particularly for folks that don’t like description on demand?

To me this sounds fine. I don't see any problems in players describing their character's actions, feelings and background (withing the bounds of the game world). However I don't see any problem with an NPC asking a PC about their sword either. If the sword has no "story" the PC could just be honest about this: "It's a sword. I kill monsters with it." This isn't putting anyone in a bad spot.

Like a lot of people have already said though, different people just want different things in their games.

 

[John R Davis]

It's the Immersion term we should ditch not DoD.

I play DH in two groups, one much more DoD than the other but both groups really like the game

Loads indie games run on DoD.

 

[Emerikol]

I've found the Alexandrian's ideas about play to be very similar to my own. It is the sort of thing that is game breaking if you don't like it. Perhaps, I could slide on the sword question but if this was baked into the game then I'd pass it by. His ideas about dissociative mechanics helped clarify in my mind what I didn't like about some mechanical approaches D&D has used in the past and now uses in 5e.

 

[Emerikol]

It's the Immersion term we should ditch not DoD.

I play DH in two groups, one much more DoD than the other but both groups really like the game

Loads indie games run on DoD.

For those who dislike it, it is immersion breaking. It is not for everyone though I agree.

 

[Emerikol]

I mean, "immersion" isn't an esoteric term. It isn't hard to figure out.

That said, I don't think it is especially important to TTRPGs. Others disagree, of course.

I'd argue it is vitally important for me. YMMV. This is why D&D is so much more fun a game for me than say a board game. I like both but if I want a board game D&D is not my choice. D&D offers me something far deeper.

 

[Emerikol]

I also think there is a difference between not wanting to roleplay your character and not wanting to invent the reality of the world. There are of course people who dislike both but they are different. Many of my players will gladly play out their bluff of the King and make up all sorts of stuff to try and trick him. They won't like it though if I ask them to just produce something about the world as they are the players not the GM.

I do though meet pre-game during session 0 and flesh out a lot of the background with players. At this point the player could express some desire for their sword to be a family heirloom. A lot of this sort of stuff works out well in advance. I'd even think this could be a conversation later if done outside the session. Inside the session it is immersion breaking for me.