D&D General Stop Yapping, Start Playing: Trimming GM Descriptions

[Mannahnin]

View attachment 418487

Kelsey Dionne does this a lot in her one-shots. (The Arcane Library, 2018) e.g. Masque of the Worms.

This is related to the OP, but formatting like this (short bulleted descriptions and using bold, all caps headers, etc.) are a bit of a different concept than the three motifs and sensory guidelines ideas.

I do really like this kind of layout and information presentation, though. Necrotic Gnome also does very similar with the official OSE modules.

 

[Celebrim]

So I am going to cut against the grain by saying it is imperative everyone in the group is seeing roughly the same thing in their head. Players are taking actions and asking questions based on the scene they imagine in their head. Sometimes it is not clear for several minutes that those actions and intentions are based on false understandings of the scene.

Yes, you should be brief so that the players do listen, but you can't be so brief that you leave out facts everyone needs to know.

For example, one of the first things everyone needs to know is all the visible points of egress and ingress from the room. This maybe the most important thing in the description.

Another thing everyone needs to know is all the features that might provide concealment for creatures or things in the room. Are their containers? Are their drapes or tapestries? Are their pillars or alcoves?

Another thing everyone needs to know is the sensory experience. Is it noisy or quiet? Is the room dusty or clean? Is there an odor in the air? Is there a breeze? Is it warm or cold? Is it dark or lit? Does the room have a palpable supernatural aura?

Another thing everyone needs to know is whether there are complex features in the room that should be drilled in on for further explanation. Bookshelves, desks, paintings, murals, carvings, floor tiles, flora, containers, and trophies may all require potentially as much explanation themselves as the room does. For brevity you may leave out the details, but you need to at least signal things that may require a closer look or caution.

Finally the room may have inhabitants and these need to be described along with their actions or attitude.

You just can't do this in three sentences and a thing they players need to hear remains needed to be heard whether the problem is you didn't speak what needed to be said or the players weren't listening. They certainly can't listen to the things you didn't say, and that's just as bad.

 

[Tonguez]

You just can't do this in three sentences and a thing they players need to hear remains needed to be heard whether the problem is you didn't speak what needed to be said or the players weren't listening. They certainly can't listen to the things you didn't say, and that's just as bad.

The single heavy oak door opens to a broad stonebuilt chamber with heavy tapestries against the walls and a twin row of six pillars leading out to an archway on the other side of the room. The air is crisp, carrying the faint tang of incense, while dim torchlight throws long, shifting shadows across the scene including the shelves and urns to your right. A pair of robed figures linger near the far arch, whispering to each other while glancing your way....

=> There you go, 3 sentences to cover all the details you specified

 

[payn]

 

[Piperken]

...I cannot wait to hear what you all think. How do you balance description and player imagination? I'd love to hear if someone else has a different technique.

There was a module I was running where the party had to rush to prevent an assassination attempt of a minor noble at their country home. The module was kind enough to provide a general description of the outside of the home, but had no description about the interior beyond noting where the attack was occurring in the library just off the entrance hall!

When the party arrived, I unrolled the Chessex map, described the outside, and handed them the markers. They drew the scene they witnessed outside. When they entered, I gave them only a rough outline: how big the entrance hall and library was, and how many doors and windows could be put in.

They were free to decorate what both spaces looked like to their content, then placed their miniatures in it afterwards; it worked great.

 

[Koloth]

The single heavy oak door opens to a broad stonebuilt chamber with heavy tapestries against the walls and a twin row of six pillars leading out to an archway on the other side of the room. The air is crisp, carrying the faint tang of incense, while dim torchlight throws long, shifting shadows across the scene including the shelves and urns to your right. A pair of robed figures linger near the far arch, whispering to each other while glancing your way....

=> There you go, 3 sentences to cover all the details you specified

One of the more useful classes I had in college was Technical Report Writing. The gist of the class was how to write about technical stuff for non technical bosses. Basics are: Keep sentences short. Noun, verb. Noun, verb, direct object. Avoid connectors like and. Avoid using commas as sentence joiners.

The above description written a bit simpler:
The single heavy oak door opens to a broad stone built chamber. Heavy tapestries hang from the walls. A twin row of six pillars lead out to an archway on the other side of the room. The air is crisp with a faint tang of incense. Dim torchlight throws long shifting shadows across the room. Shelves and urns are to your right. A pair of robed figures linger near the far arch. They whisper to each other and glance your way.

Periods allow the listener(or reader) to finishing processing that sentence. Shorter sentences are easier for most folks to process. Avoid long sentences that contain several different subjects. In the original description, the first sentence deals with: door, chamber, tapestries, wall, row of pillars, archway, other side of room. That is a lot for a listener to hold on to while waiting for the period. The first sentence in the re-write deals with the door and chamber. Much easier for a listener to process.

 

[Lanefan]

There are these other people at the table, called.players, and they frequently feel no need to be restricted to what the GM plans.

One of the foremost reasons some GMs give so much detail is that they abhor players adding material, so they must include everything the players might interact with.

My concern isn't players adding material, it's that if the players are left to fill in gaps in the description they will; and end up in their own minds filling in different details for a given element than each other and-or the DM.

Which is fine until-unless they start acting on those filled-in details.

But, if you aren't one of those GMs, then you are adding detail as you go, for which you don't have a plan.

I'd assume the DM knows the details already, but just isn't describing all of them until-unless asked. In other words, she does have a plan.

But if the players have been trained to fill in their own details rather than asking for more detailed descriptions, that's a headache waiting to happen every time those filled-in details conflict.

Hypothetical example using something from upthread:

The Grand Hall overwhelms with the scent of old oak, bitter wax, and a hint of lavender drifting from a marble vase. Stained-glass scatters a kaleidoscope of light across the mosaic floor whose beasts and vines seemingly writhe challenging you to enter.

Aspects: 1. Heavy with Old Scents, 2 kaleidoscope of Light, 3 The Floor writhing 4. Vase (treasure?)

- Theres your description shortened to 3: Aspects and an Asset that can now be explored and invoked.

The DM knows the stained glass depicts the story of the fallen king and holds a vital clue to future endeavours (that's why she mentioned it).

Player 1 fills in to herself that the stained glass is just patterns, depicting nothing, and ignores it.

Player 2 fills in to himself that the stained glass is valuable and starts cutting the windowframes out of the wall.

Player 3 fills in to himself that the stained glass is what's making the floor appear to writhe and starts shattering it with slingstones.

All the while the vase is just a vase, maybe worth a few g.p. but otherwise a red herring. Meanwhile the description has left gaps big enough for players to interact with the stained glass in every way except usefully.

 

[Tonguez]

My concern isn't players adding material, it's that if the players are left to fill in gaps in the description they will; and end up in their own minds filling in different details for a given element than each other and-or the DM.

Which is fine until-unless they start acting on those filled-in details.

I'd assume the DM knows the details already, but just isn't describing all of them until-unless asked. In other words, she does have a plan.

But if the players have been trained to fill in their own details rather than asking for more detailed descriptions, that's a headache waiting to happen every time those filled-in details conflict.

Hypothetical example using something from upthread:

The DM knows the stained glass depicts the story of the fallen king and holds a vital clue to future endeavours (that's why she mentioned it).

Player 1 fills in to herself that the stained glass is just patterns, depicting nothing, and ignores it.

Player 2 fills in to himself that the stained glass is valuable and starts cutting the windowframes out of the wall.

Player 3 fills in to himself that the stained glass is what's making the floor appear to writhe and starts shattering it with slingstones.

All the while the vase is just a vase, maybe worth a few g.p. but otherwise a red herring. Meanwhile the description has left gaps big enough for players to interact with the stained glass in every way except usefully.

sure except that player 2 and 3 have both taken additional actions that give the DM a chance to add additional information focussing on the stained glass window "as you pull out your tools to start cutting out the windowframes you notice that the stained glass depicts the story of the fallen king etc... Its not going to be an easy job to cut it out of the wall, but roll Dex"

One of the more useful classes I had in college was Technical Report Writing. The gist of the class was how to write about technical stuff for non technical bosses. Basics are: Keep sentences short. Noun, verb. Noun, verb, direct object. Avoid connectors like and. Avoid using commas as sentence joiners.

The above description written a bit simpler:
The single heavy oak door opens to a broad stone built chamber. Heavy tapestries hang from the walls. A twin row of six pillars lead out to an archway on the other side of the room. The air is crisp with a faint tang of incense. Dim torchlight throws long shifting shadows across the room. Shelves and urns are to your right. A pair of robed figures linger near the far arch. They whisper to each other and glance your way.

Periods allow the listener(or reader) to finishing processing that sentence. Shorter sentences are easier for most folks to process. Avoid long sentences that contain several different subjects. In the original description, the first sentence deals with: door, chamber, tapestries, wall, row of pillars, archway, other side of room. That is a lot for a listener to hold on to while waiting for the period. The first sentence in the re-write deals with the door and chamber. Much easier for a listener to process.

There are certainly stylistic choices being made in how the descriptions are written and in a technical report shorter more focussed sentences are better. However I like the longer more cluttered sentences for boxed text as they simulate the quick intense pressure of entering a room and taking a quick overview - the PC is attempting to perceive "door, chamber, tapestries, wall, row of pillars, archway, other side of room, 2 shadowy figures" in the 6 seconds before the rooms occupants react or they take time to focus and actually process what they are seeing (via exploration)

 

[DinoInDisguise]

One of the more useful classes I had in college was Technical Report Writing. The gist of the class was how to write about technical stuff for non technical bosses. Basics are: Keep sentences short. Noun, verb. Noun, verb, direct object. Avoid connectors like and. Avoid using commas as sentence joiners.

There are certainly stylistic choices being made in how the descriptions are written and in a technical report shorter more focussed sentences are better. However I like the longer more cluttered sentences for boxed text as they simulate the quick intense pressure of entering a room and taking a quick overview - the PC is attempting to perceive "door, chamber, tapestries, wall, row of pillars, archway, other side of room, 2 shadowy figures" in the 6 seconds before the rooms occupants react or they take time to focus and actually process what they are seeing (via exploration)

I think the way I'd recommend is a bit different. I'd actually alternate the staccato prose of the technical writing, and the longer flowing prose often used. If you alternate the two, short-long-short-long you can actually give your writing, and your spoken word, a rhythm. You can do this in different cadences such as, short-short-long, or short-long-long. Each one will convey a different feeling. If you do it well, your writing or speaking will have a sing-song like cadence to it.

This has benefits in how your writing and spoken word are read or heard.

1. You can create emphasis. A short sentence after a long one stands out. It's more effective than an exclamation point in many ways.
2. You can control the pacing. Short sentences speed things up; long sentences slow things down. Alternating lets you subtly manipulate how the audience perceives the text or speech. They will remember a short phrase after a long one, more than they will remember the long one. If you use all one or the other, you will bore the audience, just like a TTRPG game with bad pacing would.
3. You can create tension or drama. Long sentences can immerse, short ones can shock, clarify, or deliver humor. It's a good way to land a joke, go long-long-short, with the short being the punch line. You can do the same in rhetorical writing to make points land harder.
4. Done well it increases engagement by keeping the audience's attention. It does this much like a song does. It gives the words a pull, or force behind them that moves the audience forward. This can make disengaging feel awkward.

So really we should vary the length of our sentences to maximize the effectiveness of what we say or write. Look back on the great speakers of the last hundred years. You will see exactly this. Long flowing sentences, followed by short, punchy sentences.



EDIT:

For demonstration purposes, an example;

You step into the cavern. Darkness presses against your eyes. Stalactites hang from the ceiling like jagged teeth, dripping water onto the stone floor. A chill wind snakes through the tunnels. You hear it first: a soft scuttling, then another, then dozens more. Shadows twist unnaturally across the walls. You grip your torch tighter. Every step echoes. Something watches. Always.

You might notice the tension of the writing escalates at the end, just as the tension of the scene portrayed does. That's one of the effects you can give with just a bit of variety. Hope that helps.

 

[Lanefan]

sure except that player 2 and 3 have both taken additional actions that give the DM a chance to add additional information focussing on the stained glass window "as you pull out your tools to start cutting out the windowframes you notice that the stained glass depicts the story of the fallen king etc... Its not going to be an easy job to cut it out of the wall, but roll Dex"

Perhaps, on a successful passive perception roll. Doesn't do much for the guy firing slingstones at the windows, though.

There are certainly stylistic choices being made in how the descriptions are written and in a technical report shorter more focussed sentences are better. However I like the longer more cluttered sentences for boxed text as they simulate the quick intense pressure of entering a room and taking a quick overview - the PC is attempting to perceive "door, chamber, tapestries, wall, row of pillars, archway, other side of room, 2 shadowy figures" in the 6 seconds before the rooms occupants react or they take time to focus and actually process what they are seeing (via exploration)

One thing many of these stylish descriptions, both long form and short, are sadly lacking in are useful practical specifics such as room dimensions and the number and placement of exits other than the one the party are coming in through.

Atmospherics and fancy words are fine but it's the practical stuff that matters:

"On opening the door you're looking into a well-lit 30x30 foot room with closed doors in the middle of the left and far walls (1). Daylight streams in from a large window to the right (2). In the far right corner is a stone fireplace with a small fire, it's warm in here and smells a bit smoky. A half-dozen Orcs were sitting at a round table in the room's center playing cards, but your arrival has clearly interrupted their game; they are all now scrambling for their scattered weapons in a clatter of toppling chairs (3). What do you do?"

(1) - now the mapper has enough info to quickly map the room
(2) - this explains the good visibility and proactively answers any questions about lighting
(3) - you've now done enough to set the scene for whatever happens next. Further details of the room and its contents can wait until after the Orcs are dealt with and the PCs have time for a closer look; or ignored if the PCs decide to close the door and flee, or whatever suits the actions that follow.