Feedback Thread: Description/Language

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
An addendum to the above: all of this applies to running NPCs as well. I can keep several NPCs in my head at a time, with complete personalities; make decisions in character for them all; speak for them in character (although usually not with funny voices), even run conversations between them; and keep track of what they are doing and what they plan on doing. I reveal character through what they say and what they do. All of that is lost on my hyperphantasic player if I don't find a way to engage her senses.

An example. Druid NPC has a crush on Ranger NPC. Player is running fighter PC. Bard NPC enters the group. Bard and ranger start to connect; druid gets jealous. Bard and ranger start spending a lot of time together, always want to take the same watch, do other things as a unit. Druid acts surly, takes verbal shots at the bard, starts refusing to work well with the bard during combat, preferentially heals and buffs other characters, especially the ranger. Player does not notice the NPCs spending time together, but does notice the shenanigans in combat; player has no idea what it going on, doesn't even know how to approach the situation, other than to tell the druid to smarten up. Player is utterly lost without some sort of sensory cue, and subtle clues, like NPCs looking at each other without describing what the look is, are not sufficient.

And I don't want to give away the game, because the player's character is supposed to be a leader of men, and identifying and addressing this conflict is part of that. The bard and ranger are being coy and trying to hide their attraction, and the player shouldn't get to rely on an assumption that she will correctly read their microexpressions. But short of describing the lovers as mooning over each other, or the druid as looking jealous (although I did describe him as looking angry at the bard), or replicating the tone of voice of the NPCs when I speak as them, it is difficult to describe the sensory cues of a social environment. Like, how do you describe body language, without actually translating it? It apparently wasn't sufficient to always describe the lovers as standing next to each other (or placing their tokens near each other on the map), or that the druid couldn't even look at the bard.
 

Malrex

So ... slow work day? Every day?
Very interesting!! I could see me having a touch of hyperphantasia. I can 'see' a scene in my head and want to be able to just draw it on paper (I know Squeen...I need to stop time so I can start drawing!). For example a warrior fighting a spider. I see colors and shadows, backgrounds--like cracks in the walls, warrior has a bracer and a chain shirt, shadows and light splotches on his flesh, a barely seen cocoon in the ceiling...on and on...I can see it like I'm watching TV and I literally just formed an example 2 seconds ago.

For descriptions, I know some people don't like bullet points and can complain about OSE adventures. I'm in agreement actually--I don't like some of the OSE adventures because they are too 'dry' in the bullet points. There isn't enough for me in them and I can't visualize it. It's useless for me. Now it's true, I like bullet points, but I usually have sentences for the DM description to the players to set the stage for myself, then the bullet points as reminders or DM info. I can't stand descriptions with a few words and no sentence unless it's for a NPC's personality. Looking at the example from the start of the thread:

"1. The Hut: This 20' hemisphere looks like a shaman's tent, with rune-smeared burlap walls on a strapped-together bone frame. A huge (4' diameter), ornately embossed, cast-iron cauldron boils over a glowing fire in the centre of the room, surrounded by animal-skin rugs and shelves of arcane oddities. Strings of clacking bones and fetishes hang from the ceiling, obscuring sight-lines beyond 10'.

or

1. The Hut: 20' hemispherical shaman's tent.
-rune-smeared burlap walls on a bone frame.
-4', embossed, cauldron boiling over a fire in the centre of the room.
-fur rugs, shelves of arcane oddities; strings of bones and fetishes hang from ceiling.
-vision obscured beyond 10' "

So, I like #1....then I would include bullet points for the interaction bits. #2 is easy to scan, BUT for me--it's too dry."

Exactly...the second example uses a few words and for whatever reason, I can easily envision the first hut description but completely struggle with the second example....and I call it dry because it just doesn't stimulate my imagination. But yes, it's easier to scan, but I personally am going to struggle with it which actually makes it useless for me.

NOW---I'll throw in the history parts of dungeons argument in again. I've come to agree with Bryce that most history in a description can be useless or it doesn't come up 'during play', BUT for me, there are times that a little history helps me visualize an entire 'story' of the dungeon or how everything connects together. It can actually help me run the dungeon better because it will flow better. Those times when PCs keep exploring certain things...lets say a pile of rags. Well if I know a little history of the place, I might be able to throw in little tidbits that can potentially make things more interesting. Like maybe parts of the rags are a tunic with a certain emblem/symbol on it which matches a banner later, etc. The PCs may not get it--but for me as the DM it helps me visualize things better, and when that happens, I can give way better descriptions for my players.

I think another example that was hashed out somewhere here before. PCs come to a scorched door....the scorched door was burnt by dragon breath by the red dragon Khalis (or whatever). The PCs aren't going to find out about Khalis so its 'useless'--and to a sense, I agree, but also as the DM, since I know that history nugget, I can ad lib easier on descriptions on the fly, maybe adding claw marks on some walls from a dragon, or maybe a monster is using a red dragon scale as a shield (instead of just another boring wood shield). Does any of this make sense for others? lol. I have a horrible time trying to explain it. There has to be a balance for sure because I see some history stuff and roll my eyes, but sometimes I find it helpful. But 'flavor' or the 'DM's Welcome Mat'--I call it a few different things, but bottomline it can stimulate my imagination which helps me give better descriptions/or better flow for my players, thus a better playing experience.
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
This actually comes up in our family frequently. My youngest daughter and I are both very visual in our heads, my wife and other kids, not so much. With my youngest, when she started playing at around 9 years old, I'll never forget when she exclaimed "Dad! I can see these places!"

What does that mean for game design is a great question.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
@Malrex, I actually prefer description #1. The description #2 is to choppy and doesn't help me.

If you are using point form, it only helps if you specify a location first, and then a description tied to that location. This is because it helps me focus my mind's eye on that location. So "In the center of the room hangs a 4' embossed cauldron over a fire" works way better than "4', embossed, cauldron boiling over a fire in the centre of the room". That is how I narrate descriptions when I don't use boxed text (i.e. all the time); I start with a general impression of the room, and then focus on locations and the things that are in them.

I note that @The1True's description #1 includes evocative language, but only describes relevant things. That is exactly what I am talking about; you are engaging the senses but limiting your description only to things that are relevant. (Although I'm pretty sure you can't emboss cast iron without breaking it.)

I also agree with you on history. A little bit of history helps me to improvise. The scorch marks are a good example, because knowing the source helps me describe what the marks look like, which the PCs may well want to know if they are trying to rule out traps.
 

The1True

My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
And I don't want to give away the game, because the player's character is supposed to be a leader of men, and identifying and addressing this conflict is part of that.
Sounds like time for a Skill check. Shitty as a crutch; great as an arbiter of player/character dissonance.
 

The1True

My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
I need to stop time so I can start drawing!
I'm guessing Squeen is doing the majority of his drawing at work. While compiling. I get up to similar shenanigans while rendering... Every job has weird gaps of downtime. Meetings are a great place to doodle par example.
 

The1True

My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
I'll throw in the history parts of dungeons argument in again.
How about History as Lore. Lore is a treasure item. Treasure usually gets listed last where it doesn't get in the way of immediately active text. It's a reward item. Some PC's (and a lot of DM's) like Lore; so tack it on with the Treasure as something that can be divined by skill-monkey/investigative PC's who are into that sort of thing as a sort of reward for their diligence. I think the main failing of authors here is the tendency to get overly purple with the prose in this department.
 

The1True

My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
(Although I'm pretty sure you can't emboss cast iron without breaking it.)
😝

Just out of curiosity: What kind of VTT tokens are you using? The most common and readily available seem to be the head-shot on a circular game-piece variety and they suck ASS. I always look for the top-down-miniature variety, which can be a bitch to work with, but the players seem to appreciate them more.

1674804845869.png
boooo!

1674804878801.png
yaaaaaay!

and yeah, if you're using 'borrowed' battlemaps, it can be hell telling the players not to fixate on that baroque artistic flourish in the corner that isn't actually in the room description.
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
I am getting ready to key a section of a Keep and I quite honestly don't know WHAT style I am most comfortable with anymore. Part of me wants it minimalist and functional and part of me wants something less prosaic.

Merde.

 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
😝

Just out of curiosity: What kind of VTT tokens are you using? The most common and readily available seem to be the head-shot on a circular game-piece variety and they suck ASS. I always look for the top-down-miniature variety, which can be a bitch to work with, but the players seem to appreciate them more.

View attachment 1318
boooo!

View attachment 1319
yaaaaaay!

and yeah, if you're using 'borrowed' battlemaps, it can be hell telling the players not to fixate on that baroque artistic flourish in the corner that isn't actually in the room description.
I use the circular ones, but I only use head shots for PCs, and NPCs that PCs are expected to talk to. The rest of the time I try to cram as much of the body of the monster into the token as I can so players can see what they are dealing with if they zoom in. I also give them a mouse-over bubble that indicates how they are equipped, so players can make decisions about who might be a fighter etc.

I don't use top-down tokens for two reasons: (1) there are fewer of them, whereas I can make circular tokens using any image I find; and (2) they imply the token has a facing, and 4e doesn't use facings in most instances.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
Sounds like time for a Skill check. Shitty as a crutch; great as an arbiter of player/character dissonance.
Too bad she dumped wisdom; the cluelessness was actually kind of fitting.

How about History as Lore. Lore is a treasure item. Treasure usually gets listed last where it doesn't get in the way of immediately active text. It's a reward item. Some PC's (and a lot of DM's) like Lore; so tack it on with the Treasure as something that can be divined by skill-monkey/investigative PC's who are into that sort of thing as a sort of reward for their diligence. I think the main failing of authors here is the tendency to get overly purple with the prose in this department.
I don't think he is necessarily thinking about history as player facing, I think he is using it as DM facing in order to inspire the DM and help him tie elements of the module together.
 

The1True

My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
When you're writing, there is a temptation to explain the contents of the dungeon to the imaginary critic tearing everything apart in your head, it's true...
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
When you're writing, there is a temptation to explain the contents of the dungeon to the imaginary critic tearing everything apart in your head, it's true...
One way this can play out is to write it and then come back much later and clean it up. That way you can be that critic, without it paralyzing you initially.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
When you're writing, there is a temptation to explain the contents of the dungeon to the imaginary critic tearing everything apart in your head, it's true...
I would avoid explanations, especially for individual encounters. But I do think it is helpful to have a general theme tying things together, and that theme can be, or include, the place's history. Then that theme helps the DM improvise when the players colour outside the lines.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
Hey, has anyone here kept bookmarks or a list of the more interesting and informative threads? There is a lot of good content on here, and I was thinking it might be good to have a thread of threads.

Even though its a bit quiet ATM, even the recent stuff seems to be getting a certain number of views. It seems like it could be a decent resource if it was a bit more organized.
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
I don't know about the time, but I know I don't have the bookmarks. I certainly don't have the time to review the whole site.
I haven't any bookmarks, but I don't think it would be a huge time sink to comb the few threads that are here and make a little index. Make a sticky thread if Byrce or Prince would help out?
 

Maynard

*eyeroll*
I think we could publish a book with all the combined wisdom here, just gotta wait for Bryce to finish his book first =)
 
Top