Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6550617" data-attributes="member: 4937">I think there is a time and place for a descriptive style, but in general I agree - &quot;active&quot; and &quot;descriptive&quot; are not equally good.If you were reading a book, and the dialog was done in a descriptive style, or you watched a movie without dialog and just a narrator summarizing what characters said to each other but the actors never actually said anything, you'd pretty quickly pick out what was wrong with the approach.&nbsp; The descriptive style is fine for a book report or an encyclopedia, but is likely to be as dry as a book report or encyclopedia.&nbsp;&nbsp; The descriptive style is too clinical and distant.&nbsp; I'm really not saying here anything any creative writing teacher wouldn't also tell you if you were trying to create in other mediums.&nbsp; &quot;Showing&quot; is generally better than &quot;telling&quot;, and is almost always better when the goal is to create dramatic effect.&nbsp; &quot;Telling&quot; is used only when you need to skip past less important context setting exposition, to quickly bridge between dramatic scenes.&nbsp; As I explain in <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?298368-Techniques-for-Railroading" target="_blank">my essay on how to railroad</a>, because &quot;telling&quot; is a sort of handwave of the action, it is also way to railroad players, and a DM should also be conscious of this fact when making the decision to &quot;tell&quot; and of what he tells.&nbsp;&nbsp; In particular you should be careful to avoid telling player's what the PC thinks, what the PC feels, how the PC acts, or what the PC infers.&nbsp;&nbsp; DM's that do lots of &quot;telling&quot; invariably unconsciously do this, and often a lot.&nbsp;&nbsp; You often see this fault even in prepared text of a professional adventure where the author unthinkingly tells the player how his character emotionally responds to the scene.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6550617, member: 4937"] I think there is a time and place for a descriptive style, but in general I agree - "active" and "descriptive" are not equally good. If you were reading a book, and the dialog was done in a descriptive style, or you watched a movie without dialog and just a narrator summarizing what characters said to each other but the actors never actually said anything, you'd pretty quickly pick out what was wrong with the approach. The descriptive style is fine for a book report or an encyclopedia, but is likely to be as dry as a book report or encyclopedia. The descriptive style is too clinical and distant. I'm really not saying here anything any creative writing teacher wouldn't also tell you if you were trying to create in other mediums. "Showing" is generally better than "telling", and is almost always better when the goal is to create dramatic effect. "Telling" is used only when you need to skip past less important context setting exposition, to quickly bridge between dramatic scenes. As I explain in [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?298368-Techniques-for-Railroading"]my essay on how to railroad[/URL], because "telling" is a sort of handwave of the action, it is also way to railroad players, and a DM should also be conscious of this fact when making the decision to "tell" and of what he tells. In particular you should be careful to avoid telling player's what the PC thinks, what the PC feels, how the PC acts, or what the PC infers. DM's that do lots of "telling" invariably unconsciously do this, and often a lot. You often see this fault even in prepared text of a professional adventure where the author unthinkingly tells the player how his character emotionally responds to the scene. [/QUOTE]

Verification