Flowery descriptions at the game table

[Dykstrav]

When I'm describing things to my players, I go for the "less is more" approach. Why?

I read alot of screenplays. When you check out a screenplay (or any piece of writing for that matter), what you want is to be concise. You want not only to keep the word count down, but you also don't want to lose the reader in a miasma of adjectives and descriptors that strip out one of the most fun parts of reading- imagination. If you catch yourself re-reading the same page of a screenplay over and over again, it's a good indication that it's either just not evocative or you're getting bogged down in irrelevant details. In my experience, it's almost always the latter.

I've noticed the same phenomenon in my games. When you start describing a room and the players start fiddling with their dice or flipping through a sourcebook, it's a strong cue that they find some other detail of the game more interesting than the long description. Like all storytellers, a DM should pick up on this cue and give the audience what they want. Don't be vague, but try to avoid specific details unless prompted for them. This also gives you a "book is better than the movie" situation.

Describing an abandoned temple of Pelor as an "old stone building in disrepair, with cracked flagstones and other signs of neglect" is my own happy medium. One player might imagine a Greco-Roman style temple with crumbling statues and columns. Another might picture a gothic cathedral with a tiled roof. Another might decide that it resembles an Aztec-style ziggurat overgrown with ivy and vines. We're all pushing around metal figures on a vinyl mat, but our imaginations can all be on totally different wavelengths without making anyone else share our particular vision of the scene. I'm always happy to provide more details if prompted, but less specifics tends to be more evocative. I only add more details by default if it's important to the story (for example, the frescoes in that temple might depict a powerful demon that the characters will fight later, so I'd detail those more).

 

[the Jester]

Depends on the pace I'm looking to set.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This link will give you a good idea of exactly how much description I use:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=93497

 

[Jdvn1]

My rule: Amount/Quality of description should be proportional to significance.

I'm not going to describe every tree in the forest, but I might describe the 300' tall oak tree the druids have centered their society (and possibly aspects of their religion) around.

Caveat: PbP games should have more description, because it's such a slow game you need something other than pace to make it interesting.

Note: Significance can be subjective. A big, dumb Fighter may not care for the details of his new shiney longsword; the bard who recognizes an engraving as a scene from a famous battle might. Also, there's GM significances--the players might not care for all the details of a festival (it's basically all fluff), but if the GM is trying to paint a mood (possibly for a more dramatic change later, as when attackers turn the joyful chaos of playing children into the chaotic turmoil of running away from attackers, trying to save one's life) then description is a useful tool.

 

[Pbartender]

Describing an abandoned temple of Pelor as an "old stone building in disrepair, with cracked flagstones and other signs of neglect" is my own happy medium. One player might imagine a Greco-Roman style temple with crumbling statues and columns. Another might picture a gothic cathedral with a tiled roof. Another might decide that it resembles an Aztec-style ziggurat overgrown with ivy and vines. We're all pushing around metal figures on a vinyl mat, but our imaginations can all be on totally different wavelengths without making anyone else share our particular vision of the scene.

On the other hand, I've had problems with this sort of thing in the past... Different players envisioning a different scenes that are different from what the DM is envisioning, causing the players to make bad assumptions usually about what is not there or what cannot be done and thereby unknowingly eliminating a possible solution to whatever puzzle they are trying to solve.

 

[Dykstrav]

On the other hand, I've had problems with this sort of thing in the past... Different players envisioning a different scenes that are different from what the DM is envisioning, causing the players to make bad assumptions usually about what is not there or what cannot be done and thereby unknowingly eliminating a possible solution to whatever puzzle they are trying to solve.

It also depends on the group that you are DMing for. Some players do enjoy the long-winded descriptions (I just haven't met too many of them, I'd say maybe one in a dozen is like this). Of course I have my own vision for what the place is supposed to be like. But I treat these things more like a checklist than a box of flavor text.

For example, in the temple mentioned above, I might jot down a few such notes:
• Wooden doors. Locks have been smashed out, but the doors will still close.
• All icons and images of Pelor have been defaced. Faces have been taken off.
• Goblin graffiti along the southern wall.
• Scuffs and indentations in the floors where heavy furniture and pews used to be.
• Cobwebs and dust in the corners and along the ceiling.
• Bits of trash scattered around the defaced altar.

I've noticed that just making a list is alot more effective for me. My descriptions seem to flow more organically as the players investigate the areas that interest them. This also avoids the glazed eyes during the boxed text and encourages the players to actually poke around the room some.

 

[el-remmen]

My descriptions are meant to evoke and inform in a general sense - and then as the PCs investigate or pay attention (or something happens that would grab their attention) then the added details are slowly added as needed.

As I have a very environment-based style for combat encounters and stuff I tend to describe these in more detail as cover and terrain play a role in nearly every combat I run - so for the PCs not know about the height of some rock, or the kinds of trees in the area (for example) would be depriving them of a resource they might use.

 

[Hypersmurf]

On the other hand, I've had problems with this sort of thing in the past... Different players envisioning a different scenes that are different from what the DM is envisioning, causing the players to make bad assumptions usually about what is not there or what cannot be done and thereby unknowingly eliminating a possible solution to whatever puzzle they are trying to solve.

The memory I have of this was a 1E game; we were trekking through mountains, and we all thought we were on a narrow trail on the side of a cliff.

The front PC disturbed an aurumvorax in its lair - small but nasty. He attempted to kick it off the ledge.

The DM looked confused - as far as he was concerned, we were on a narrow trail at the bottom of a canyon.

I still can't figure out how we all ended up thinking we were on a ledge!

-Hyp.

 

[Prince of Happiness]

The memory I have of this was a 1E game; we were trekking through mountains, and we all thought we were on a narrow trail on the side of a cliff.

The front PC disturbed an aurumvorax in its lair - small but nasty. He attempted to kick it off the ledge.

The DM looked confused - as far as he was concerned, we were on a narrow trail at the bottom of a canyon.

I still can't figure out how we all ended up thinking we were on a ledge!

-Hyp.

Apropros of nothing, I miss the aurumvorax aka "The Golden Gorger."

 

[Talic]

I like a middle ground between the original examples, leaning toward the more descriptive. Give enough information to understand the setting, highlighting the important parts. If the players mind comes up with a Greek temple or Gothic cathedral, either way is fine. But if a detail is important, I make sure to include it in the description. Also like others, I'm perfectly happy to add more detail on something if a player requests.

Pacing is also key. If the description prefaces a battle, I stick with very short sentences, and strong descriptive words. If the characters have just arrived at some fantastic place, for example, and there's no immediate threat, I'll kick up the description a bit in an attempt to get a real feeling for the place.

But in either case, I try to limit descriptions to 3 sentences. I try not to cheat by using compound sentences to much. Anything longer and players tend to lose track of information, even when they are paying attention. I generally type these out a head of time in order to clearly limit myself and make sure I don't accidentally skip something important. Extra description players may request I'll just add on the fly with what my own vision was.

Delivery can also make a difference. On the occasion when longer descriptions are necessary, I've found it helps a lot to provide a good pause between key points to let detail sink in.