Ambiance, Allusions, and Limitations

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
Is noisms writing about gaming again? I stopped following him when he went for a long stretch of political commentary.

I preferred his first example to his second, but didn't particularly like either. At least, neither works particularly well for me. I do agree with a lot of his commentary, though, and Malrex's, and squeen's.

For my personal style of DMing, I focus on the dungeon - any environment really - as a living place. That means I need to keep track of all of the various relationships among the elements in the dungeon, how the PCs have stirred things up, the movements of monsters that they will have spurred, etc. Which means I am keeping track of a lot more than is going on in a single encounter entry. I need to keep a good chunk of the dungeon in my memory buffer. So I lean toward simple individual encounters because the complexity comes from how the elements in multiple rooms in the dungeon interact.

Because of this, I prefer spare room entries that focus more on inspiring an encounter than staging an encounter. And given these constraints (and the constraints of human memory even if you do only focus on the encounter), and the imprecision of language, I think it is an exercise in futility for writers to try to impose their vision of how a a room should be interpreted on readers.

Noism's first example is a good example of this:

57. A hexagonal pit, 9' deep and 6' across, lies at the end of the crawlspace. Its walls are completely smooth and it cannot be climbed unaided. At the bottom lies a skeleton, dressed in fragments of what was once a red tunic, and it can be seen to be clutching a short leather tube. Close inspection at the bottom of the pit will reveal its legs are broken in several places, and the tube contains a thin vial with a greenish yellow gas inside. If smashed, the vial will release poison into a 10' cube (save vs poison or choke to death in d3 rounds).
I had no idea from this that I was supposed to infer that the legs were broken as a result of torture. I assumed they were broken from the fall into the pit. There is nothing here from which I can infer that the victim was an assassin, or that he was tortured and his body discarded.

Moreover, I take it from noisms' discussion that the backstory for the assassin does not relate to what is currently in the dungeon in any way. It is just an extra thing I need to keep in my head while I am running the dungeon so that the players have have the thrill of mystery, or partial discovery. But why not do this with mysteries that ACTUALLY RELATE TO THE ADVENTURE? Then is it not wasted ink (pixels).

I had a lot of questions regarding this when I first read it. "Hexagonal" isn't exactly evocative, is the shape significant or is it just an adjective for the purposes of having an adjective? IMO, "pit" is superior to "[irrelevant and non-evocative adjective] pit". Is the colour of the tunic relevant to the dungeon? Apparently not, so it should be removed. Before I read the second example, it appears that the victim died from the fall in the pit; if it came up I could have inferred broken legs from that fact, it adds nothing more than listing ordinary kitchen implements in an entry titled "KITCHEN". I also note the the depth of the pit, nine feet, is an unnecessarily precise number (unless the number "9" is important to the dungeon somehow) that actually misleads the DM because it gives the impression that the legs broke from the fall. And why is the vial in a tube?

If you get rid of the irrelevant apparently irrelevant information and language that is not evocative, the gameable content you are left with is this:

57. A pit lies at the end of the crawlspace. Its walls are completely smooth and it cannot be climbed. At the bottom lies a skeleton. A search reveals it is holding a thin vial with a greenish yellow gas inside. If smashed, the vial will release poison into a 10' cube (save vs poison or choke to death in d3 rounds).
On the other hand, if the backstory is actually relevant to the dungeon, I would add the basic backstory to the module background at the beginning, where it is a lens through which the whole dungeon can be interpreted by the DM, and I would change the entry to make it clear that the skeleton did not die of the fall. So make the unclimbable pit shallower and make it clear the body was discarded:

57. GARBAGE PIT. A pit lies at the end of the crawlspace, filled to within 5' of the brim with reeking offal and other refuse. Huddled against one of the walls of the pit lies a skeleton in a blood red tunic. Close inspection reveals that its fingers are broken, and its legbones and kneecaps crushed in several places. Nearby lies a splintered blowgun, which is still loaded with a thin vial containing a greenish yellow gas. If smashed, the vial will release poison into a 10' cube (save vs poison or choke to death in d3 rounds).
Even if these clues still don't convey the meaning to the reader, the writer needs to let go at this point because it really doesn't matter if the DM gives it a different interpretation. That is, while you want the language to be evocative, it doesn't need to evoke the same thing for DM and writer. This is not a dungeon chokepoint, so nothing turns on the DM getting it "right". Adding to the description to try to force the DM to understand your intent adds to the wall of text and impedes the overall understanding of the dungeon because it is more for the DM to hold in his head with respect to the room and the dungeon overall.

So if the width and the shape of the pit isn't clear on the map, it doesn't matter if the DM, when asked, makes up different details than the writer had in his head. It doesn't matter if he comes up with a different backstory as to how the bones were broken, or how the skeleton came to be there, or whether it was alive or dead when it went into the pit, or whether the blowgun belonged to the skeleton. The writer should want the DM to react to his description in the same way the players react to the DM's description, with wild, creative speculation about how it might have happened. And then the DM can start adding details on his own, and the writer doesn't have to clog the module with them.

And if you do have information that is genuinely important for the DM to understand, you need to call it out expressly. I have been wondering whether dungeons need a short section at the beginning outlining the elements that are important to make it function, and advising the DM that any other element in the dungeon can be given an alternate interpretation or changed outright without breaking anything.

EDIT: It occurs to me that I think it is more important for the situation to be evocative than for the language to be evocative. I often find purple prose gets in the way of comprehension. It is probably a continuum; the more information you are trying to convey, the less you should rely upon colourful language to convey it; conversly the less information you have to convey, the more important it is to use colourful language to inspire. It may also be more important to use evocative language for the elements that will form the players' (and the DM's) first impression, and revert to clear, precise language when describing things that are discovered through inspection or interaction.
 
Last edited:

Pseudoephedrine

Should be playing D&D instead
I think this is one of those things one can write tons about without necessarily ever capturing clearly because the real issues are the relevance and salience of the backstory, and deploying those correctly involves multiple judgements - when conceiving of the backstory, when tying it into the "present day" of the game, and finally when deploying it as actual speech or writing in the moment of gaming. Each one of these judgements is not reducible to a simple and straightforward set of principles that can be executed mechanically, and in combination that issue simply becomes worse.

I'll admit I think I'm pretty good at all three, based on feedback from my PCs, but my ability to do so is partially informed by a worldview and practice in the rest of my life of summoning up relevant and salient elements of history that inform the present, and persuading others about why they should agree and be interested in them. I think if someone wanted to cultivate the right kind of judgement, taking this practice on in one's own life would certainly be a good form of training for it (and vice versa).
 

Pseudoephedrine

Should be playing D&D instead
Per Noisms example: If a DM can't suss out and riff off of a great lead-in, then screw 'em! :)

DMing has (and always will) be for the top 10% of those with a certain set of skills. The commercial approach of TSR/WotC (post AD&D) is like forcing the band to only play "Chopsticks" because that's what everyone can manage. Forget it. I don't think it's wrong to just tell those who can't keep up: "Sorry, maybe this is not for you".
I think one of the structural weaknesses of this hobby is that we often know what qualities a good referee should instantiate, but have very poor ideas of how to get people to cultivate and develop those qualities. I agree that the ability to run a game well is relatively limited compared to the number who wish to do it, but I think much of the problem is that the path between being a low-skill referee and a high-skill referee is not well charted, nor is the method of progressing from one state to the other well-described. The comment I made just now in the post above this one reminded me of this, and it's something I think about a great deal more generally (something similar is broadly true of PCs as well, tho' their individual excellence or lack thereof tends to be a bit less critical to the overall functioning of the group).
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
That's because it relies upon personal qualities gained away from the gaming table.
I'm not sure I agree, I think all sorts of skills can be developed at the gaming table. Some lessons may be harder to learn on the DM's side of the screen, though.
 

Pseudoephedrine

Should be playing D&D instead
That's because it relies upon personal qualities gained away from the gaming table.
I'm not sure I agree, I think all sorts of skills can be developed at the gaming table. Some lessons may be harder to learn on the DM's side of the screen, though.
I'm a middle position between you and Beoric. EOTB. I think that in practice, because game texts and the hobby as a whole have a lot of trouble teaching these skills, people tend to look elsewhere to domains of their life where knowledge transmission and personal cultivation is much easier, and then bring the skills they developed in those domains back to the game. If game texts or hobbyists had clearer ideas of how they could cultivate these qualities within the hobby, people might not need to go elsewhere to get them.
 

EOTB

So ... slow work day? Every day?
The very nature of fantasizing inhibits development; the economics of RPG publishing prevents presentation to the degree required; the nature of content creation is not mentor-based and neither is game play/refereeing, excepting some D&D-specific practices (and then only sometimes).

Development of life skills and personal qualities requires the application of both knowledge and motivation exceeding our natural entropy towards comfort and status quo. This is most often brought about through an influential mentor in a particular area (but not always).

It can happen, and I have no doubt there are outliers, or that people will say it has done so on the internet where you have to take their word alone. But I am very confident this isn't a matter of changing the RPG learning process to get materially different results across the law of large numbers.

Edit - put another way, you will get many more Rob Kuntz archetypes than Gygax archetypes, if trying to develop these skills through D&D.
 
Last edited:

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
The very nature of fantasizing inhibits development
I disagree strongly with this statement; I think development requires the ability to imagine outside of one's immediate experience. And I am aware of roleplaying being used as a learning and therapy tool.

That said, I don't have a strong sense of how many people actually learn anything from gaming. I do suspect that, for people who don't play sports, TTRPGs can be people's best opportunity for learning to collaborate as a social unit work toward common goals. And including people who play sports, it can be one's earliest opportunity to negotiate the setting of common goals. It is one of the most social of sit-on-your-ass activities.
 

Malrex

So ... slow work day? Every day?
The very nature of fantasizing inhibits development; the economics of RPG publishing prevents presentation to the degree required; the nature of content creation is not mentor-based and neither is game play/refereeing, excepting some D&D-specific practices (and then only sometimes).

Development of life skills and personal qualities requires the application of both knowledge and motivation exceeding our natural entropy towards comfort and status quo. This is most often brought about through an influential mentor in a particular area (but not always).
Ohhh shit...we are going deep! :)

I want to break down EOTB's post:

"The very nature of fantasizing inhibits development" --I'm with Beoric in that I disagree, although maybe 'fantasizing' needs to have a definition in this case. There is left brain and right brain people, so EOTB may have a point in some aspects depending on what brain people lean on. My personal experience--at work, I can 'fantasize' how utilizing different grant monies (and their complications/requirements) to pull things off for projects--basically, I can think outside the box and....I ENJOY doing that to figure out problems--I'm not alone in this, I think several people have this skill. I am puzzled why some of my coworkers 'freeze' like a deer in headlights in situations like that (of course they have strengths in other areas, etc.).

D&D may or may not have something to do with that--i.e. figuring out solutions as a character...etc., but I DO find myself constantly going through that SAME EXACT exercise during play (as a player) AND at work--which I would argue enhances development of solving problems/finding solutions. Just like imagining up a new dungeon, I imagine new programs at work and realize weaknesses of those program developments which leads me to 'developing' a new skill to make sure the program will be successful.

I'll be bold and throw out some names! Look at yourself EOTB...your love of D&D has made you look into developing new skills for making gameplay digitally for virtual tabletop (I think! correct me if I'm wrong?); I know for myself, I had to develop skills in a digital mapping program, and/or learning layout, editing....etc. (and still developing those skills). What about @squeen--has 'fantasizing' caused him to develop skills of drawing/art so he can draw awesome shit for his content?

"The economics of RPG publishing prevents presentation to the degree required". Raw, to the point, no bullshit, and unfortunately true. There is a lot I wish I could do to improve a publication...kickstarters help a lot with this though! A definition of 'the degree required' might/could be its own topic/thread.

"the nature of content creation is not mentor-based and neither is game play/refereeing, excepting some D&D-specific practices (and then only sometimes)." I might agree to a point about the content creation, HOWEVER, I do know that having partners/mentors can make content creation so much more fun! Bouncing off ideas can enhance content and make it explode!! As a challenge, go hash out your ideas with Grutzi sometime and get back to me... you'll see what I mean. Are experienced players/DMs not mentors?

And gameplay--I think some people might like what some DMs do and incorporate what they learn when they DM. They learn what works and what doesn't....sometimes from others (i.e. mentors).

There is ABSOLUTELY a natural skill, and outside gaming skills to being a good DM...but I do think things can be learned and enhanced through play/refereeing as you play with other/different DMs and players--I guess I consider them mentors. Practice makes perfect...

I do agree in some aspects, that EOTB is correct in that not all skills/development can be gained by gaming and there are avenues that increase personal qualities away from the gaming table (like from your parents)...but I do think there is potential in the D&D to enhance development and social skills for people 100%.
 

The1True

My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
I do agree in some aspects, that EOTB is correct in that not all skills/development can be gained by gaming and there are avenues that increase personal qualities away from the gaming table (like from your parents)...but I do think there is potential in the D&D to enhance development and social skills for people 100%.
And vice versa; as you mature as a DM you should do anything but D&D and in the process pick up complex human interaction, learn world history, encounter everyday stories and characters that you can use to flesh out your worlds, etc. I think some people go deeper and deeper into the game and as a result never grow as creators.
When you're a kid, all you have to work from are some Drizzt Derpderp novels and a need to impose some control over a world you otherwise have no control over.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
And vice versa; as you mature as a DM you should do anything but D&D and in the process pick up complex human interaction, learn world history, encounter everyday stories and characters that you can use to flesh out your worlds, etc. I think some people go deeper and deeper into the game and as a result never grow as creators.
When you're a kid, all you have to work from are some Drizzt Derpderp novels and a need to impose some control over a world you otherwise have no control over.
Well that's true of anything. Breadth of education and experience will help you be better at anything you do.

@EOTB and @Malrex , I don't agree that the nature of the game experience precludes mentoring, but I do agree that the current structure prevents it. People generally play in their peer groups; the old model of being introduced to the game by an older relative (if it was ever really common) appears to have largely disappeared; @squeen I think you are an outlier, my kids who play have very little interest in playing with me.

A lot of discussions of DMing happen online, where young DMs can't really be expected to pay any attention to rando old guy on the internet. I guess at the moment they are learning DMing from celebrity DMs who they really can't interact with. Grogs refusing to play newer editions doesn't help. There just isn't much about how the hobby is organized or promoted that encourages multigenerational games.
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
@squeen I think you are an outlier...
Funny, that's what my kids say about me too. :)

Starting with them when they were between 8-12 was probably the key (10 years ago!). But we'd always had family game night and the like and we keep a tight lid on TV/internet/video-games too...a couple hours or so a week tops, which caused them to become manic novel junkies instead. Apparently the human brain needs entertainment.

I know @grodog plays with his (now adult) kids too. It was actually my wife's idea we try it. Having never played before (and generally one to avoid "nerd culture") she had no idea where it would all lead. I remember her once asking "When does this game end!?" Never a player, she did enjoy seeing our kids work through challenging situation and social dynamics. I recall once her shouting from the side-lines at my son about an NPC "You are going to trust that guy?!? He's obviously lying!". Good times.

My daughter has played with at least one other group at college with her friends. I imagine that young DM-dude was pretty excited to get four freshmen gals spending Friday nights at his table. They played 5e but my daughter didn't like it much. They stopped attending after only about half-dozen sessions. At the time it made me happy to see her carrying on the tradition outside our home.

It's getting harder and harder to gather together to play as the older two have jobs now---one at NASA and one at Google (to brag at bit). That's part of the reason I see myself writing up the world and handing it to them as a gift in a few years---so that they (or I, if I'm that lucky) can play it with the grand kids**. That would be nice.

**I'll have to carefully censor all the boobs from the art before then.
 
Last edited:

Grützi

Should be playing D&D instead
Malrex said:
As a challenge, go hash out your ideas with Grutzi sometime and get back to me... you'll see what I mean. Are experienced players/DMs not mentors?
Yeah... come at me you buggers... I take you all out... I... oh wait... that rather sounds like praise...
in that case...
carry on gentlemen, carry on :p
 

robertsconley

*eyeroll*
I guess at the moment they are learning DMing from celebrity DMs who they really can't interact with.
It has an impact because those celebrity DMs show don't tell what they are doing. It why the mentoring @EOTB mentions works as well. Because it involves more showing than telling.

A major reason the OSR gained any traction at all, was all the different actual play accounts showing that the classic editions as much fun to play as they were back in the day. Granted in some ways it was more telling because most of that occurred through written accounts on blogs or forums. However people get more out of a written account of what happened during a session than a essay trying to teach folks. And to be clear it not they get more details out of it, they pay better attention because they feel more of a connection to what being shown or the written account of the session.
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
I have a hard time with most session play reports. Too many details about the specifics of the setting (names etc.). I prefer it be written at a slightly high level of abstraction or I tune out.

It's akin to having someone tell you details about their kids lives (or people they knew 30 years ago) when you've never met them.
 

robertsconley

*eyeroll*
I have a hard time with most session play reports. Too many details about the specifics of the setting (names etc.). I prefer it be written at a slightly high level of abstraction or I tune out.

It's akin to having someone tell you details about their kids lives (or people they knew 30 years ago) when you've never met them.
Sure, some are well written and some are not. I observed a higher level of involvement when it is well written as related above.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
It has an impact because those celebrity DMs show don't tell what they are doing. It why the mentoring @EOTB mentions works as well. Because it involves more showing than telling.
Yes, but what they are doing is performing for an audience, along with celebrity players who are also performing for an audience. I am not sure they run their private games like that.
 

robertsconley

*eyeroll*
Yes, but what they are doing is performing for an audience, along with celebrity players who are also performing for an audience.
Of course they know they have an audience. Which leads too...

I am not sure they run their private games like that.
As I understand the group was a bunch of voice actors who happened to play D&D and one or more than said "Wouldn't it be neat if we somehow filmed our sessions." given the good times they were having. With Geek & Sundry approaching them they made it happen.

Critical Role
is a creator-owned streaming show where the cast play an ongoing Dungeons & Dragons campaign, with Matthew Mercer serving as the show's Dungeon Master for the seven other cast members.[4]

The group's first campaign began two years prior to the start of the series as a one-off, simplified Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition game for Liam O'Brien's birthday.[5][6][7] The players enjoyed the game so much that they continued to play it while switching to the Pathfinder ruleset.[8][9][10][11] After Felicia Day heard about the private home game from Ashley Johnson, she approached the group about playing it in a live-streamed format for Geek & Sundry, which hosted the show until February 2019.[9][11] In order to streamline gameplay for the show, the game's characters were converted from Pathfinder to Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition before the web series began airing on March 12, 2015.[12][13] There were initially eight cast member players; Orion Acaba left the show after episode 27 of campaign one.[14][15] His character, Tiberius, appeared in the first seven issues of the prequel comic series Critical Role: Vox Machina Origins.[16][17]
Does it matter that they know they are being recorded, yes. Does it mean is it staged or scripted. No. It is own thing with strong points and weak points. And keep it mind that the whole reason that it got to the point where it is now is that folks feel it is authentic. Not in that it represents how tabletop is commonly done. But rather this is how the group really plays barring they probably not going to do anything NSFW or off-color the way they would in private.

Because of that many hobbyists find Critical Role instructive. Far more than if Matt Mercer had a blog and wrote about what he did with a bunch of voice actor friends. And that my main point not how Critical Role plays or doesn't play.

What I would do is take something like this recording of me running an adventure, edit it, and add commentary. The problem with the below is that because we didn't use Roll20. I had to run theater of the mind which is not what I do normally. Which is why I never both asking for this video and permission from the participants to do an edit.

 
Top