PDA

View Full Version : Are my descriptions good enough in your opinion?



Hyler
2013-04-30, 02:01 PM
So when I'm DMing I usually provide descriptions like ''Okay, you guys see a group of goblins up ahead, what do you do?'' or ''The goblin hits you and deals 3 damage.''.

I usually run things in the moment so it's almost impossible for me to say things like ''Your party comes to a bend in the path. With some concern, you notice that the singing of the birds in the gentle forest has suddenly been stilled. Ahead, the path comes to a solidly built, but poorly tended, wooden bridge that crosses a wide length of the river you've been following. The water beneath it looks cold and swift, as does the pair of ogres that stands atop the bridge. With cruel smiles they each pick up a heavy axe and lumber toward the party. ''Before humanscum go over bridge they give us shineygold!'' rumbles one of the creatures in a voice heavy with menace.'', so instead I say ''You guys see a bridge and two ogres, they walk up to you and tell you to give them gold.''

Also, as a player, when I write my characters back stories it's (somewhat literally) ''Alistair grew up in a farm town.'' or ''Xepug the half-orc grew up in a Orc tribe then he went off to adventure because he didn't like them.''

Is what I'm currently doing good enough in your opinion? If not, than any tips? Thanks so much in advance!

tensai_oni
2013-04-30, 02:07 PM
Your descriptions are too dry. But the opposite, the example you have provided as what you are not doing, is bad too. It's borderline literary masturbation. Players don't want to hear flowery descriptions about unnecessary tangents from the game master, they want to hear important things.

So focus on important things. To follow on the ogres-and-bridge examples, the important thing is that there is a bridge, and there are ogres. Describe the ogres as hulking and smelly, describe the bridge as old and decayed. Give them facts their characters would focus on, but don't be afraid to describe them.

It's different in PbPs, because in these games you have more time to write a post and can be more verbose.

valadil
2013-04-30, 02:49 PM
Your descriptions are too dry. But the opposite, the example you have provided as what you are not doing, is bad too. It's borderline literary masturbation.

True fact. I had OP's problem and started writing up huge descriptions for everything. I could actually see my players lose interest in the game as they stopped being PCs and became an audience.

Preparing a bit of text is good, especially if you have trouble describing things on the fly. My rule of thumb is three sentences. That's all I get. It's enough to get across the important info, but not enough that the players think you're reading to them. Describe the top three things the players should get out of the scene and then shut the hell up.

Barsoom
2013-04-30, 02:57 PM
You need to expand your vocabulary a bit. Changing a single word can make wonders to the quality of your description. Do you have every creature with legs "walk" toward the party? If so, try this: Ogres lumber, Zombies shuffle, city guards stride, the rich aristocrat prances, and so on.

Or, instead of "you see", things like "you spot" or "you gaze upon" can evoke a completely different mood.

Also, I don't like this:


''Your party comes to a bend in the path. With some concern, you notice that the singing of the birds in the gentle forest has suddenly been stilled.Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather avoid telling players how their characters are feeling and thinking. You set the scene, they decide whether they need to be concerned or not.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-04-30, 03:12 PM
I agree with most of what's been said-- what you say is too little, the full paragraph is too much. A few sentences at the beginning of the scene, and no more than one or two to describe individual actions, is all you really need.

You can make up nice descriptions on the fly-- I do. But it's definitely an acquired skill, and probably not something everyone can do. All I can suggest is practice-- write, write, write! Eventually, your mouth will get the hint and start producing pretty words too. You don't have to be flowery, but just providing a bit more information than "three goblins" is a good start.

Exediron
2013-04-30, 03:32 PM
So when I'm DMing I usually provide descriptions like ''Okay, you guys see a group of goblins up ahead, what do you do?'' or ''The goblin hits you and deals 3 damage.''.

I usually run things in the moment so it's almost impossible for me to say things like ''Your party comes to a bend in the path. With some concern, you notice that the singing of the birds in the gentle forest has suddenly been stilled. Ahead, the path comes to a solidly built, but poorly tended, wooden bridge that crosses a wide length of the river you've been following. The water beneath it looks cold and swift, as does the pair of ogres that stands atop the bridge. With cruel smiles they each pick up a heavy axe and lumber toward the party. ''Before humanscum go over bridge they give us shineygold!'' rumbles one of the creatures in a voice heavy with menace.'', so instead I say ''You guys see a bridge and two ogres, they walk up to you and tell you to give them gold.''

Also, as a player, when I write my characters back stories it's (somewhat literally) ''Alistair grew up in a farm town.'' or ''Xepug the half-orc grew up in a Orc tribe then he went off to adventure because he didn't like them.''

Is what I'm currently doing good enough in your opinion? If not, than any tips? Thanks so much in advance!

I'd probably shoot somewhere in the middle, for example:

Just around the bend the path is blocked by a turn of the river; a bridge spans the swift-moving water, but...

[Reaches into bag and slaps down ogre figures]

A pair of ogres guard the bridge! Since you weren't making any attempt at stealth (assuming they weren't), they've noticed the group. One points at you and says in broken common 'Stop! This our bridge. You pay to walk it!' while the other unlimbers a heavy axe from his back.

All right everyone, what do you do? The ogres appear to be waiting for a reply, so the choice is yours.

Or something a lot like that. Give them enough information to keep their characters engaged, but don't spend too long on pure description. Try not to go too long without a chance for the characters to do something, either - that leads to cutscene fatigue.

NOhara24
2013-04-30, 03:36 PM
So when I'm DMing I usually provide descriptions like ''Okay, you guys see a group of goblins up ahead, what do you do?'' or ''The goblin hits you and deals 3 damage.''.



Using descriptors like this for minor events is fine. You don't need to spend a lot of time or effort describing the minor events of a battle or stuff the players would find ordinary.



''Your party comes to a bend in the path. With some concern, you notice that the singing of the birds in the gentle forest has suddenly been stilled. Ahead, the path comes to a solidly built, but poorly tended, wooden bridge that crosses a wide length of the river you've been following. The water beneath it looks cold and swift, as does the pair of ogres that stands atop the bridge. With cruel smiles they each pick up a heavy axe and lumber toward the party. ''Before humanscum go over bridge they give us shineygold!'' rumbles one of the creatures in a voice heavy with menace.'', so instead I say ''You guys see a bridge and two ogres, they walk up to you and tell you to give them gold.''


Good job, this was well written :smallsmile: Now we at least know you're capable of creating a mood. That being said, it goes back to what I mentioned earlier. No need to spend all that time, energy and effort to describe something so mundane. Not only will your characters become bored of it and just stop paying attention, your campaign will suffer just as much as if you were doing the same dry descriptions each time because they simply won't care.

The trick is to get descriptive and long-winded when you want to have the players feel a certain way. It's like salt. The right amount of salt can make or break a dish.

TinyHippo
2013-04-30, 03:46 PM
There's a huge difference between "descriptive" and "long winded" and you seem to be conflating the two. I've found that what helps me is to have some stock descriptions that I can throw into random situations pre-made. So if you know they'll be facing ogres, write out a short (I think the 3 sentences or less rule someone else mentioned is good) description of the ogres. I like encounters that are portable: a couple enemies I've statted up and have descriptions for, that I can add in wherever the characters go. 2 ogres at a bridge in the woods, two ogres at the mouth of a cave, two ogres hiding in the steppes etc.

You can also improve your off the cuff descriptive abilities by every day practice. The long graf at least shows you have a decent vocabulary and ability to describe when called on, so work that into your inner monologue. When you're sitting in traffic, take a second and describe the scene to yourself as though it was from a game. "You sat in traffic and there were like, cars and stuff" is bad. But with time you'll be able to riff off "You sit in the middle of a dense traffic jam, slowly crawling in stop and go. Despite the blistering heat outside the AC is keeping the car frosty cool. Looking to your left, you notice something odd about the car in the next lane." And so on... You don't want purple prose, but the vague generic "descriptions" tell your players you don't really care about the game, even if that's not true.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2013-04-30, 04:26 PM
But the opposite, the example you have provided as what you are not doing, is bad too. It's borderline literary masturbation.

Literary masturbation, really? I guess you're on the William S. Gray side of the Hemingway-Faulkner debate, then?

tensai_oni
2013-04-30, 05:47 PM
Literary masturbation, really? I guess you're on the William S. Gray side of the Hemingway-Faulkner debate, then?

If it's unnecessary, too-long descriptions that players won't even pay attention to, it's not done to their benefit. It doesn't please them, it only pleases yourself.

Hence the term.

AttilaTheGeek
2013-04-30, 07:03 PM
Preparing a bit of text is good, especially if you have trouble describing things on the fly. My rule of thumb is three sentences. That's all I get. It's enough to get across the important info, but not enough that the players think you're reading to them.

Valadil, posts like this are why your sig basically means "the above is 100% true".

TuggyNE
2013-04-30, 07:07 PM
You need to expand your vocabulary a bit. Changing a single word can make wonders to the quality of your description. Do you have every creature with legs "walk" toward the party? If so, try this: Ogres lumber, Zombies shuffle, city guards stride, the rich aristocrat prances, and so on.

Or, instead of "you see", things like "you spot" or "you gaze upon" can evoke a completely different mood.

Ehhhhh, that sounds like the old "says/said" issue. I don't remember the exact quote, but it goes something like this:

Beginning writers use "said".
Intermediate writers use "questioned" and "articulated".
Advanced writers use "interjected" and "noted".
Masterful writers use "said".
And it's true; really good skill does not rely on purpling your prose, except exceptionally for a particular purpose. Most of the time, plain words work best.

Barsoom
2013-04-30, 07:11 PM
Ehhhhh, that sounds like the old "says/said" issue. I don't remember the exact quote, but it goes something like this:

Beginning writers use "said".
Intermediate writers use "questioned" and "articulated".
Advanced writers use "interjected" and "noted".
Masterful writers use "said".
And it's true; really good skill does not rely on purpling your prose, except exceptionally for a particular purpose. Most of the time, plain words work best.
Knowledge without context is a dangerous thing :smallamused:

The point of the quote you bring is that masterful writers put everything that needs to be in the dialogue, so they have no need for "interjected" or "questioned". The contents of the dialogue show everything. That's why "said" is enough.

Doesn't really work for "walk" vs. "lumber"

valadil
2013-04-30, 09:38 PM
Valadil, posts like this are why your sig basically means "the above is 100% true".

Aww, shucks *wipes a tear away*.

Slipperychicken
2013-05-01, 05:46 PM
Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather avoid telling players how their characters are feeling and thinking. You set the scene, they decide whether they need to be concerned or not.

Good catch. I feel the same way as a player. It's my character, and unless he failed a Will save, I say how he's feeling and what he's doing. I also get pissed and consider leaving the group when the DM dictates my character's actions and mannerisms.

"You march up and slap the guard awake, barking the order at him", for example, is completely unacceptable and may well result in me abandoning the group.

Exediron
2013-05-01, 08:41 PM
I agree, and it's a surprisingly common mistake made by DMs (even some experienced) as well as an increasing number of modern games *coughdragonage2cough*

Since you're not writing a book here, I don't think the vocabulary used matters so much as providing concise, complete information that the players need to determine how their characters react. If you don't mention that the stream is fast and/or deep, for example, a character might decide to ford it - and that player would then probably be put out, understandably, because their character would have known from the start that the river wasn't safe.

The description of 'you see a bunch of goblins up ahead', unless it really is all that you have thought of, almost certainly leaves out information the players might have used and should have had.

scurv
2013-05-01, 08:55 PM
Rough formula that i keep in mind for descriptions. And not alwase in this order.

One to three sentences to describe what it is, One sentence to describe where it is, and one to two sentences to describe what it was and is now doing.

Example

You see three goblins on an very old and very unsafe wooden bridge that is over a wide, but slow moving river. The goblins are armed but do not have their weapons in hand as they seem to be fishing with nets. (insert die rolls) as they look up and notice a small part of well armed adventures approaching (wait for player response)

Remmirath
2013-05-01, 10:56 PM
I aim for giving the players enough information to decide what to do, and to picture the scene as it is happening, but not enough that it feels like I'm going to launch into reading them a book. If the descriptions get too long, some of the interactivity of gaming becomes lost.

Aside from the previously mentioned problem with describing to the players how their characters feel, I would say that your second example works well. In that particular example, I would also throw in a listen check for them to notice whether or not the birds have stopped singing, and pause once or twice to give them a chance to react in character.

The main thing that stands out to me as a problem with what you are currently doing is that there's little for the players to work off of for roleplaying. It adds to the game more, I feel, to actually say what the NPCs are saying (''Before humanscum go over bridge they give us shineygold!'') instead of saying the gist of what they say ("they walk up to you and tell you to give them gold"). It's easier to figure out how your character would repond if you know the actual words used.

How much description you need to give about scenes depends partially on how much you're mapping them out as you go along also. If you're drawing out a detailed map already, then saying that there are trees is redundant if you're already drawn trees; if there is nothing drawn, then everything that the characters might want to be interacting with needs to be mentioned.

As for the backstories, I find that's a matter of playing style. I typically come up with only sketchy backgrounds before I actually start playing a character, and then fill them in while I'm playing. A backstory is mostly a springboard to beginning to play the character, to me. Higher level characters need longer ones, though; once they get past a certain point, some justification for their level is needed. I find it difficult and unnecessary to come with lengthy backstories for very low level characters, but helpeful for very high level characters.

tommhans
2013-05-07, 08:45 AM
As i am still a new dm(4th session tomorrow) i do think this is an area i can improve. Right now im doing things in between, something explaining detailed on things that might not need it, to an easy explanation of how things look. like they were once attack by bloodthirsty manatees in the sea, i just went "and suddenly 4 seemingly hostile manatees jump up to the surface and the first one spits on Pogoma(one of the characters)"

I did the opposite in my very first minute as DM, where i told detailed about the room, about the contents and ofc that there was a gold statue there. didnt have the deity list on me so i kinda came up with something more awesome, and they thought that random gold statue was of big importance, but in truth, it was just a random artifact :p ^^

But as they enter really important areas i try to be more detailed, like this last session they made a magic show instead of going further on to save a village, so they came to this village to late, houses were burned down, bodies were allready rotting and the smell was intense. They saw bodyparts everywhere and in truth, it looked like the whole village was totalled.

(sounds better when i told it in norwegian tbh :P)

Mastikator
2013-05-07, 09:12 AM
So when I'm DMing I usually provide descriptions like ''Okay, you guys see a group of goblins up ahead, what do you do?'' or ''The goblin hits you and deals 3 damage.''.
[snip]Not good enough imo.
A little bit of detail is good though.
"Okay, you guys see a group of angry goblins ahead, facing you, they are armed with short spears and swords and wear nothing but rags".
"The goblin slices you with his sword across your stomach for 3 damage".
The description is not just nice fluff, it's also valuable information.

The other stuff is bad though, it presumes the party's action beforehand. Give short descriptions rather than long, but say specifically what happens, don't rely on the mechanical abstractions to tell the story, the abstractions and math are to make things less arbitrary, they don't make things interesting.

Craft (Cheese)
2013-05-07, 09:44 AM
Your party comes to a bend in the path. With some concern, you notice that the singing of the birds in the gentle forest has suddenly been stilled. Ahead, the path comes to a solidly built, but poorly tended, wooden bridge that crosses a wide length of the river you've been following. The water beneath it looks cold and swift, as does the pair of ogres that stands atop the bridge. With cruel smiles they each pick up a heavy axe and lumber toward the party. ''Before humanscum go over bridge they give us shineygold!'' rumbles one of the creatures in a voice heavy with menace.

Here are my rules for how I like to describe stuff:

- Order things in your description in the order in which the characters would naturally notice them. This is hard to do on the fly if you're making up stuff as you go along (like if you didn't decide to have ogres taking a toll until after you had described the bridge), but do it whenever you can.

- Be brief, but evocative. A statement like "You hear nothing." is often much more powerful than "A powerful silence fills the stale air of the dungeon."

- If you can communicate something through a piece of the environment instead of NPC dialogue, do so.

- Don't be afraid to attach a quick piece of lore to something to give it flavor if need be. There's nothing wrong with telling a brief story about what the players are looking at so long as the characters have a good justification for knowing it.

- Limit two adjunct modifiers per noun. Avoid relative clauses if possible; Especially when spoken aloud they can make sentences hard to follow if used in excess.

With this in mind, here's how I'd edit this: "You see two heavily-scarred ogres guarding an old wooden bridge, axes ready. Before the plague hit, farmers used to carry their grain to Blackstone across this. A painted sign reads '10 gold pieces.'."

Dimers
2013-05-07, 02:57 PM
And it's true; really good skill does not rely on purpling your prose, except exceptionally for a particular purpose. Most of the time, plain words work best.

In other words:


Never use a long word when a diminutive one will do.

Verte
2013-05-07, 04:20 PM
Yeah, this


So when I'm DMing I usually provide descriptions like ''Okay, you guys see a group of goblins up ahead, what do you do?'' or ''The goblin hits you and deals 3 damage.''.


doesn't seem good enough if it's how you always describe things.

For the longer passage, this is how I would edit things. Bold parts are what I would add, whereas crossed-out parts are what I would cut.


''Your party comes to a bend in the path,With some concern, you notice that the singing of the birds in the gentle forest has suddenly been stilled. Ahead, the path comes which leads to an old solidly built, but poorly tended, wooden bridge that crosses a wide length of the river you've been following. The water beneath it looks cold and swift, as does the pair of ogres that stands atop the bridge. Two ogres are on the bridge and with cruel smiles they each pick up their a heavy axes and lumber toward the party. ''Before humanscum go over bridge they give us shineygold!'' rumbles one of the creatures in a voice heavy with menace.''

Basically, try to keep most descriptions to fewer than four sentences, and also consider what is important about the scenario. In this case, it seems that the ogres on the bridge are most important, so they should described with the most detail. I also think it is important to describe them in a little more detail in case ogres happen to not be "always-evil" in the setting or in the players' minds. Basically, give just enough information so that the party can make a good decision and so that they can adequately picture what's happening.

Slipperychicken
2013-05-07, 06:05 PM
Basically, try to keep most descriptions to fewer than four sentences, and also consider what is important about the scenario. In this case, it seems that the ogres on the bridge are most important, so they should described with the most detail. I also think it is important to describe them in a little more detail in case ogres happen to not be "always-evil" in the setting or in the players' minds. Basically, give just enough information so that the party can make a good decision and so that they can adequately picture what's happening.

Reminds me of this one story, in which a DM spent so long (several paragraphs) describing every possible detail of a room with a dragon in it that the DM forgot to mention the dragon, the players tried to investigate the room, and were promptly attacked by it with the DM dumbfounded.


EDIT: Forgot how the story went at first, changed it.

Water_Bear
2013-05-07, 06:29 PM
I'd say, as a rule of thumb, any time you introduce an NPC (especially Monsters), Location or Magic Item there should be 1-3 sentences of comprehensible prose which gives useful information. If this was planned, write it out beforehand. If not, addlib something.

"As you look into the well, four hideously decayed ghouls clamber up and screech their battle cries."

We know what we're fighting (Four Ghouls), where they came from (The Well), and what they're like (Gross and Aggressive).

"The greatsword sword before you looks as if it was just pulled from a furnace, but is cool to the touch. It's metal is much lighter than ordinary steel and shines like molten gold. There are a series of runes and glyphs running up the blade, which are currently burning red."

We know what the thing is (Magic Greatsword), and get hints of it's composition (Rare Metal, Possibly Mithril) and abilities (Fire Damage?).


In normal play, descriptions should be short and sweet;


DM: "The orc screams and swings it's scimitar at <Character Name>."
*Rolls Attack and Damage*
DM: "It hits, dealing seven points of damage."

Combat takes a long time; long enough that people might lose the flow of the fight but too long to bog it down with long descriptions.

Player: "I try to haggle the price down!"
*Player Rolls*
DM: "The merchant sighs and offers you a ten percent discount."

There's a lot of social minutia that is too unimportant to RP out, but can't be easily ignored either.

Longer descriptions should be rare, both to conserve their power and keep the players awake.

Barsoom
2013-05-09, 01:57 AM
"The greatsword sword before you looks as if it was just pulled from a furnace, but is cool to the touch. It's metal is much lighter than ordinary steel and shines like molten gold. There are a series of runes and glyphs running up the blade, which are currently burning red."
I'm curious, how would they know it's cool to the touch unless they touch it? And why would they touch it immediately after the DM said "it looks as if it was just pulled from a furnace"? In this segment, did the DM simply decide on behalf of his PCs that they are going to touch it?

If so, that's a problem which I call the runaway description. DM is providing the players with information they can't possibly obtain unless they perform a certain action, without making sure they actually perform that action. And that just removes player choice.

Craft (Cheese)
2013-05-09, 02:49 AM
I'm curious, how would they know it's cool to the touch unless they touch it? And why would they touch it immediately after the DM said "it looks as if it was just pulled from a furnace"? In this segment, did the DM simply decide on behalf of his PCs that they are going to touch it?

If so, that's a problem which I call the runaway description. DM is providing the players with information they can't possibly obtain unless they perform a certain action, without making sure they actually perform that action. And that just removes player choice.

I don't think it's unreasonable in this particular case: The DM is doing this only for the purposes of providing important information to the players. The alternative, where the players spend an hour of real-time trying to plan a way to get the treasure because they (falsely) think it will hurt them, is much worse. Where you get in the realm of "removing player agency" is when you do stuff like this:

"The greatsword before you looks red-hot, as if it were just pulled from a furnace, and its surface is molten gold. As you grab the sword, it burns your hands horribly and you scream out in pain. What an idiot! Take 10d6 fire damage."

Vitruviansquid
2013-05-09, 07:04 AM
The problem with short descriptions is that they don't give players a good sense of what they're supposed to do. At the very least, you should describe a character's outfit so that we can identify their social role or character class. For example, "you see a goblin with a long, gnarled staff and a floppy hat," or "you see a goblin in mail armor and carrying a big, serrated axe," or "you see a goblin carrying a large pack with an eclectic collection of cookware and knick-knacks hanging off of it," or "you see a goblin in a dirty sackcloth tunic and a hempen belt."

I try to give enough of a description to give players an idea of how I want them to react to a situation (this is NOT the same as telling the players what their characters think or feel). Take the following descriptions,

1. "You see a trio of ogres on the bridge. They are loitering around in grimy furs and have wooden cudgels on hand. One of them is picking his nose."

2. "You see a trio of ogres on the bridge. The shortest one stands half again taller than your party's fighter and they are all carrying large, brutal clubs. The scars on their bodies suggest they've used those clubs on adventurers like you before."

The first description tells the players it's an easy encounter by emphasizing the goofy, stupid aspect of the ogres and sends the message that the players can probably beat or trick the ogres pretty easily. In a game where resource management is important, your players would probably be pretty hesitant to blow powerful attacks, re-rolls, or what-have-yous on these ogres. The second description, on the other hand, tells the players that these ogres are stone cold badasses and should probably not be fooled around with. This would help nudge the players toward coming up with a devious ambush, tackling it as a social challenge rather than a combat one, or using all their resources for a powerful alpha strike in the first rounds of combat.

On a side note, I dislike telling the players how they feel, like "you are intimidated by this warlock and his powerful magical aura," but saying something like "nobody would criticize you for flinching away from this warlock's powerful magical aura" or "the average knight would probably be bolting in the other direction at the sight of the warlock" would, imo, give players a good idea of what you want them to think without playing their characters for them.

Barsoom
2013-05-09, 11:52 AM
I don't think it's unreasonable in this particular case: The DM is doing this only for the purposes of providing important information to the players. The alternative, where the players spend an hour of real-time trying to plan a way to get the treasure because they (falsely) think it will hurt them, is much worse. Where you get in the realm of "removing player agency" is when you do stuff like this:

"The greatsword before you looks red-hot, as if it were just pulled from a furnace, and its surface is molten gold. As you grab the sword, it burns your hands horribly and you scream out in pain. What an idiot! Take 10d6 fire damage."Not unreasonable, more a matter of playstyle. If I would always fast-forward when it's safe, the one time I don't fast-forward and look at my players expectedly, they'll figure out what's what immediately. I just like keeping them on their toes. Even at the slight cost of sometimes wasting a bit of time on something that ends up being unimportant. (it doesn't come up too often, and it's never as bad as an hour)

Besides, it's a roleplaying opportunity. The sword glows pulsating red. You don't know what it is, but surely not something you see every day. How would your character approach this?

Water_Bear
2013-05-09, 03:30 PM
I'm curious, how would they know it's cool to the touch unless they touch it? And why would they touch it immediately after the DM said "it looks as if it was just pulled from a furnace"? In this segment, did the DM simply decide on behalf of his PCs that they are going to touch it?


Besides, it's a roleplaying opportunity. The sword glows pulsating red. You don't know what it is, but surely not something you see every day. How would your character approach this?

I've made a bit of a composite reply here because the second one answers the first; the "cool to the touch" bit is intended to preempt stupid 10-foot pole antics. Kind of pointless putting a magic sword there if the PCs are too afraid to pick the damn thing up.

(Of course, in a more Old School game with lots of Cursed Items this kind of description would be almost as bad as saying "there aren't any traps" to a Thief after a roll. But Old School style descriptions are a book in and of themselves.)

As for removing Player choice, I don't think there's anything wrong with my wording. The sword is cool to the touch regardless of whether a character touches it, and sharing that information with the Players helps move the game along. As long as you're not telling the Players that their characters take (voluntary) actions or dictating their emotions to them you're solid, at least in my book.

Slipperychicken
2013-05-09, 04:14 PM
As for removing Player choice, I don't think there's anything wrong with my wording. The sword is cool to the touch regardless of whether a character touches it, and sharing that information with the Players helps move the game along. As long as you're not telling the Players that their characters take (voluntary) actions or dictating their emotions to them you're solid, at least in my book.

You could probably do well with "the sword doesn't give off heat", (or "the sword isn't hot at all", "the sword is surprisingly cool") which should convey the information pretty well, without implying the observer's actions.

Of course, saying "the sword is surprisingly cool" may cause it to be dubbed "The Cool Sword", and motivate the PCs to commission a Gurren Lagaan-style sunglasses design attached to it. In which case you should be proud to have such awesome players.

Zovc
2013-05-09, 06:14 PM
I agree that there is a happy medium. Even without preparation before the campaign, you can probably take a moment to make things more vivid.

For example, let's say the players rounded the corner and saw ogres standing on the bridge:

"You round the corner and see ogres standing on the bridge."

Versus "As the [four] of you are making your way around a bend, you come to a bridge. Naturally, there is a pair of ogres standing on the bridge. Before you get the chance to acknowledge them, one eagerly barks at you in broken Common, demanding a toll."
(Even this could be long-winded, depending on the attention span of your group, or present distractions like pizza.)

Versus some long description of the lush green trees, the muddy, broken down trail in the woods, the specific details of how the path bends leading up to the bridge.

It might be fine to characterize one or both of the ogres, too, but only if it particularly stands out. We all assume that ogres big, lumbering oafs that smell bad and don't speak well. If one has a sapphire shoved into one of his eye sockets, though, that is probably worth noting. Or maybe both of the ogres are covered in some sort of purple ooze. That kind of stuff sounds like it matters.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2013-05-09, 11:48 PM
Am I the only one here willing to listen to more than, like, ten seconds of description?

Exediron
2013-05-10, 12:22 AM
Am I the only one here willing to listen to more than, like, ten seconds of description?

No. But in many cases descriptions longer than needed serve only to break up the flow of the session without any real gain. Descriptions should (in my opinion) be limited to the information that the players need to interact with whatever is described properly as their characters would. If you mention that the bridge is falling apart, the character with the armored warhorse might think twice about charging onto it - but if you mention that the bed of the river is composed of orange-hued pebbles about which the water burbles with pleasant little ripples they won't use that information for anything. Later, if the characters approach the river or perhaps while they are passing over the bridge, you can mention that piece of information as a bit of mood. But the scene establishment (especially for a combat scene like the example) shouldn't go on too long.

Barsoom
2013-05-10, 12:27 AM
but if you mention that the bed of the river is composed of orange-hued pebbles about which the water burbles with pleasant little ripples they won't use that information for anythingSome players I know would use it to set up a mining/prospecting operation. Just sayin'

Haarkla
2013-05-14, 04:01 PM
So when I'm DMing I usually provide descriptions like ''Okay, you guys see a group of goblins up ahead, what do you do?'' or ''The goblin hits you and deals 3 damage.''.

...

Is what I'm currently doing good enough in your opinion? If not, than any tips? Thanks so much in advance!

I too often run things in the moment. Short decriptions are good when responding to the players actions, but when describing a new scene or challenge I like something meatier.

I try to stay one step ahead of the players. Even if I only decided on an encounter with ogres 5 minutes beforehand, I try to provide some elaboration to my description.


I would say something like:

''Your party comes to a bend in the path. You notice that the singing of the birds in the forest has ceased. Ahead, the path comes to a solidly built, but poorly tended, wooden bridge that crosses the river you've been following. The water beneath it looks cold and swift, as does the pair of ogres on the bridge."

...

"With cruel smiles they each pick up a heavy axe and lumber toward you. ''Before manthings go over bridge they pay us toll of gold or manflesh!'' one rumbles."


I don't mind short backstories from my players.

Jay R
2013-05-14, 07:01 PM
Ehhhhh, that sounds like the old "says/said" issue. I don't remember the exact quote, but it goes something like this:

Beginning writers use "said".
Intermediate writers use "questioned" and "articulated".
Advanced writers use "interjected" and "noted".
Masterful writers use "said".
And it's true; really good skill does not rely on purpling your prose, except exceptionally for a particular purpose. Most of the time, plain words work best.

The actual lesson from this quote is that first you must learn when to use specific terms, and only after getting good at that can you learn when you don't need to. You cannot jump from Beginning to Masterful by continuing to use "said".

Specifically, a beginning DM would say, ''Okay, you guys see a group of goblins up ahead, what do you do?''

An intermediate DM would articulate that "Roll a d6. OK, you aren't surprised. You notice a group of goblins, with the markings of a hill tribe."

An advanced DM would note that "There is a small clearing ahead, with a chestnut tree in the middle. In the shade of the tree stand several goblins, some with Lochaber axes and some with short swords. They are dressed in the livery of a hill tribe, and have been eating lunch. Their packs are off, and their poles are against the tree."

A masterful DM would say, "You see several goblins, some wearing swords; some with polearms leaning against the tree. Do you act immediately, or look around for more details, possibly losing initiative?"

Thrawn4
2013-05-16, 05:40 AM
Imho the appropriate ammount of descriptions depends on the situation. If the players enter a new and important scene (e. g. the capital, a giant tomb...), it is a good idea to provide them with a little more background as the atmosphere is suppossed to be different. It helps everyone (DM included) to ease into it.
However, in most situations it is important to remember that the players have no idea about the current situation UNLESS you tell them. In the bridge example they need the important bits: where are the players (e. g. distance to the bridge), what is the most striking / threatening feature (ogres, number of ogres, how alert are they). Other conditions like the kind of area or the time of day are also important but should be known already through your previous descriptions. In order to make it less stale and more vivid, it is helpful to include a little more information, for example by including other senses (smell, temperature, pain, tactile sense - e. g. the stench of the ogres) or to mention one or two details (one of the ogres wears a spiked helmed, the bridge looks battered).
Ideally, your descriptions are like a miniskirt: Long enough to cover the essentials, but short enough to keep the interest.
Oh before I forget it: Give your players time to react, don't just assume.

E.g.
As you leave the wood, you notice a flowing river that is crossed by a battered bridge, approximately 100 metres in front of you. You also notice three armed ogres standing. One of them is sniffing at his axe.
Now, obviously you could provide more or less details depending on how you like it, but the important bit (there is a problem) should be covered. But the players should have some time to react. Even if the ogres happen to spot them immediately (I recomment a skill-test), they neet some time to cover the tistance, ant the players can react as they wish. Tont worry to much about missing information. If the players neet more (e. g. how teep is the river), they can ask about it.
(In case you titn't notice, one of my keys broke while I wrote this).

Etit: I just noticet that the tescription is a little short, but again, it tepents on your taste.

neonchameleon
2013-05-16, 07:07 AM
Am I the only one here willing to listen to more than, like, ten seconds of description?

Says the person making a single line post :)

Seriously, the answer to this question (unless forcing reactions on the PCs) is a table by table issue. Ask your players and try mixing it up a bit. Some approaches bore some people while others love it. "Chop. The goblin does three damage." is near one end of the spectrum - but the whole spectrum is useful to different people. Also do you use maps and minis - there's a huge "Show, don't tell" aspect there.

On the other hand almost all the advice in this thread is good IMO.

Kudaku
2013-05-16, 08:16 AM
I find that after a point, the length of a description is inversely proportional to how much the players actually learn from it. If there's more than six facts in a description, odds are pretty good that at least one of those facts will be forgotten.

I'm currently running a group through one of Paizo's adventure paths where there frequently is quite a bit of information the AP expects you to read out to the players. Here's one of the more long-winded examples of a room description:

Stone fonts containing frothy dark water sit to the north and south of the eastern entrance to the room, and twin banks of stone pillars run the length of the long chamber. At the western end, shallow stairs rise to a platform about two feet off the ground. The walls surrounding this platform are lit by hanging braziers that emit glowing red smoke, giving the place an unnerving crimson lighting that throws the bas-relief carvings of countless monsters feasting on fleeing humans into lurid display. A black marble altar stone, its surface heaped with ashes and bone fragments, squats before a ten-foot-tall statue. The sculpture depicts a very pregnant but otherwise shapely naked woman who wields a kukri in each taloned hand and has a long reptilian tail, birdlike taloned feet, and the snarling head of a three-eyed jackal with a forked tongue. The left kukri flickers with fiery orange light while the right one glows with a cold blue radiance.

There are a few issues with a description like this:

1. reading this out to the players takes quite a long while. Since sessions can drag on it can be demanding to concentrate for hours straight and odds are at least one of the players will start to get a bit glassy-eyed at the end of that.

2. You're very much subjected to information overload. Keep in mind that in a forum post you can actually read the post, go over it, mull it over, and reread anything you're unsure of. A player only has one chance to process all this information (and at the pace that the GM narrates it) and decide what he wants to act on or want to ask about. In this case we have stone fonts with frothy dark water, a platform with braziers that emit glowing red smoke, some rather tacky bas-relief carvings, a black marble altar stone, ashes and skeletal remains, a ten foot tall statue of Lamashtu, two kukris that glow and flicker with magical lighting, and so on... It's a lot to take in.

When the players entered this particular room they completely blanked on the ashes and bone fragments on the altar, despite these remnants being one of the more important quest objectives in the area, simply because it got lost in everything else.

Oh, and that description does not contain anything about what was lurking in said room...

Jay R
2013-05-16, 10:42 AM
Am I the only one here willing to listen to more than, like, ten seconds of description?

Written by whom? I will cheerfully re-read the descriptions in Tolkien, but find myself skipping past descriptive passages in many other books.

In a game, I want the tactical grid before the fight, and the aesthetic description after. Just like in real life.

(If I am actually playing the role of somebody who has rounded a corner and found six ogres, then I'm not paying attention to the color of the flowers just then.)

Slipperychicken
2013-05-18, 09:25 AM
Am I the only one here willing to listen to more than, like, ten seconds of description?

A session has limited time (people have responsibilities, families, work, classes, exams, etc), and you only have so many sessions before you need to change/reshuffle your gaming group for some reason (moving, classes end, someone transfers, someone gets a job which interferes, etc).

You only have so much time, and you need to use it well. If you can communicate descriptions concisely and without skimping on important information, that is preferable in my opinion. I appreciate the effort, and amateur storytelling has its place in the roleplaying experience, but I'm mostly at the table to play, roll dice, stab monsters, and do cool stuff.

Listening to a drawn-out narration can feel like a bad meeting or lecture: the kind that just puts you to sleep and you can't pay attention even when you try. But just like you risk losing your players' attention with too much, there's also danger in saying too little. If you only say "you see a man", this is completely unhelpful. For all your players know, he could be anything (carpenter? king? cop? priest? stripper? who knows!), no one knows where he is, and they have no idea what to do with him. You'll want to give your players at least an idea of their appearance and what they're wearing, holding (if anything), and doing. This will give them a mental image of the NPCs, as well as a guideline what to expect (which will, in turn, allow them to take more appropriate action).