Less is More in Descriptions?

[Easy e]

I have found that as I GM more and more, I find myself doing less and less "flourish" in my descriptions. I used very basic vocabulary and short, punchy statements of fact. I leave out descriptions of people almost completely.

For example, "You open the door and you immediately smell something delicious. The doorway leads to a large dining hall, with a table and chairs in the center. There are a group of noble looking people sitting around the table, eating. The table servants stop what they are doing, and look at you. The clanking of cutlery slowly falls silent. The nobles are a bit slower to realize you are interrupting, but soon look at you as well. What do you want to do?"

I am not sure if this is a good thing or not? I see flavor text in modules that are very well-done, and have used much longer descriptions in the past. However, whether I go flowery or plain I still get the same player generated questions, and less flowery descriptions take less time.

What are your opinions on the best way to approach things when it comes to descriptions?

[Xervous]

The biggest thing to keep in mind is that you are performing for an audience. You’d not make allusions to the Ship of Theseus if you were trying to amuse five year olds just the same as a more esoteric chemistry joke is likely to flop when delivered to IT workers. Some players get more enjoyment out of flowery scenes because the details present more points and angles to interact with. Others want the important details in bullet point format so there’s no confusion over what is present in the imaginary world before them. Observe your players (which you seem to be doing), and feel free to ask their opinion on the matter.

[MoiMagnus]

What are your opinions on the best way to approach things when it comes to descriptions?

There are two goals to a description:
(1) Factual matters. Which is what the PCs are about to interact with. Ideally, you want to be as succinct and short as possible, and give the opportunity to the player to ask questions so that you can give a little more details to the parts that interest them.
(2) Feelings, ambiance and tone. That's where elegant text can help, but this text is nothing (and potentially even counterproductive) without the adequate delivery. You don't need them for every single occasion, the most important moments are at the beginning to set up the tone at the beginning, and to signal a change of tone at important steps (like the reveal of the big bad guy). And in fact, you don't "need" them more than you need images or musics to illustrate what's happening. The thing is, the table of players will naturally set up an ambiance (and hopefully not the "we're bored and this isn't fun" ambiance), so unless you have a specific vision in your mind (which is the case for modules and one-shots), you can often just roll with what the player are setting up by themselves. Just don't be surprised if all your horror-mystery end up as slapstick comedy.

[Catullus64]

I am not sure if this is a good thing or not? I see flavor text in modules that are very well-done, and have used much longer descriptions in the past. However, whether I go flowery or plain I still get the same player generated questions, and less flowery descriptions take less time.

What are your opinions on the best way to approach things when it comes to descriptions?

I too find that I get the same questions from players as when I use more plain and direct language. So the deciding factor for me is that using elevated language is more fun, so I do that.

I think people sometimes get the wrong idea when discussing the use fancy language in RPGs. For me, it doesn't have to do with the volume and specificity of words, or the density of images, but rather with imitating a more poetic or formal diction. For instance, here are two descriptions of the same scenario, of roughly the same length:

You enter a high-vaulted banquet hall lit with many-colored lanterns. Three long tables run the length of the room, piled high with bread, baked meats, and strange delicacies. The tableware seems to be of polished silver, and the guests & servants are dressed in well-tailored suits of clothes. At the head of the dais is a stern-looking man in ceremonial armor, who sits in the position of royal honor and wears a golden crown upon his head.

You are dazzled by lanterns of every color as you pass the doors of the high hall. Upon the tables which traverse the hall is laid the bounty of field and forest, and rich things to eat from far-flung corners of the earth. How finely garbed the serving-men, and how much more so the lords in their gay robes, the ladies clad all in loveliness! Overseeing the solemnities there sits a grave lord, attired in warlike state, yet governance and authority crown his brow.

I would consider the latter of these more "flowery" than the former, even though the former provides more detail. It's got more to do with archaic and formal diction than it has to do with the abundance of description.

[King of Nowhere]

From a purely gamist perspective, the players only need to know hard facts and stats, everything else is distraction.
From a purely storytelling perspective, a better description adds beauty to the story. That's the purpose of a description

[Vahnavoi]

Less isn't more and more isn't less. Instead, humans have a limited capacity for processing information. At the same time, for any concept you want to communicate, there's a minimum amount of information you need to pass on. Given a specific language, these set boundaries to which cadence and form is suitable for what you're trying to communicate.

If your players are asking the same questions regardless of whether you're using short or long descriptions, this implies the long form is not doing anything the short form isn't. In that case, you are better off using the shorter form. A form of Occam's razor applies: between two descriptions that do the same thing, use the one that's simpler, shorter and thus less time-consuming to use. You know you're doing long form descriptions correctly when people ask less questions, or ask different questions, than with short form.

A lot of flourish in old modules existed because the authors got paid by the word. As a result, their information design sucked - because some of the text only existed for benefit of the author, with no extra benefit to the end user.

Other cause for pointless flourishes is honest but bad attempts to mimic other writing styles, without proper understanding of how those other styles were meant to convey information. So you get text that adheres to external form of, say, some poetic meter, but fails to convey meaning in a memorable and evocative way that a good poem should. So on and so forth.

[Lacco]

From my point of view, it comes down to several factors:
- used medium
- situation the characters are in
- game style
- atmosphere

PbP is different from live gaming - in PbP, I get to think more about what the character sees, and I can incorporate more information to a post, because the players can read it several times and parse through the text differently than through my speech at a table. Still, it's important that the text is readable, so a good use of paragraphs, formatting and putting the most important information ahead of fluff (or even highlighting it in spoilers in a TL:DR) helps a lot.

The game style - and I'll go as far as to tell "game itself" - changes mainly WHAT is considered important in given moment. Let's consider combat: for D&D, that would be e.g. location of enemies, terrain, etc. - but if we were using a map & miniatures, that would be much less important. For Riddle of Steel, it's mainly the relative location of enemies, their actions, what their facial expressions/body language suggests, and what are the main points of interest (e.g. a big table in the middle of the room, a chandelier above it, a staircase).

Now in live gaming, I tend to just close eyes and visualize the area through the eyes of the characters. The description I give is usually based on the situation and atmosphere. If the characters are in combat, my descriptions tend to be very brief, giving only the overview of the room at best, and not very detailed account of what the enemies look like - one or two traits to separate them (the one with patch over his eye, the one with scarred face, the one with the big axe - things the characters could notice in their adrenaline-fueled state). If the characters are carefully exploring, I will give them a detailed overview, starting with the major items they notice, and then going on about details.

As for the atmosphere... my horror games switch between very much detail and very short, brief statements (mainly to throw the players off). If the players are exploring an ancient dungeon, I will give more details on the stale air, a hint of cinnamon and myrrh that permeates the whole area, the scratches on the walls and the sound of rats moving somewhere right beyond the area lit by the torches. If they are having fun in the tavern, I will give them basic overview of the guests, but unless they focus on someone specific, I will point out mainly the inconsistencies (person hiding their face using a wide hat, the two ruffians that watch them from a corner with hungry looks, the barman that looks pale, almost withered).

There are two main points that I try to avoid - and neither has to do with word count.

I try to avoid characters' opinions. I will say the air is stale, or that the pig roast looks juicy with the right amount of crispy, darkened skin, or that the ruffians watch them with a hungry look... but not that the air smells terrible, the pig roast looks delicious and the ruffians look dangerous - that's players' job.

I also try to avoid putting important information to the end. I've read few modules that described the whole room in a flowery fasion, and in the end mentioned the orc warband standing in the middle of the room. That sounds... rather strange, especially for the dungeon.

The characters in the dungeon would first look at anything potentially dangerous, then at everything else. The situation would be different if they were standing atop of a mountain, surveying the lands around, basking in sunlight... and then noticing the growing spot on the horizon. A dragon. Because a) it's far b) it's not an imminent threat c) it's part of the horizon, not the thing right in front of their eyes.

[Mastikator]

The drawback of long winded descriptions is that they run the risk of being boring. Boring means players don't retain the information. As such in my experience it is better to just tell the players the tone than to convey it with flowery language. "It's a nice warm sunny day and you feel at ease" is perfectly fine. A long paragraph about how nice the flowers smell is less fine (unless there is something important about the flowers and you want the players to pick flowers).

Edit- I'd say a long description is acceptable once per session, really. And even then cut all the fat you can. Respect the player's time (that also goes for you players out there!)

[Easy e]

Good point about the differences in gaming venues; i.e. in person, Play by Post, video, etc.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Firstly, I'm not presenting my manuscript for a novel to my captured audience. I like using dazzling words from my overly-developed lexicon when I can, but I try to keep it short so as not to bore and so I can repeat it when certain players didn't pay attention the first time.

Start with a visual description of the setting. Give details about one or two things only. Add a smell or an atmospheric. Do not tell the players how their characters react to it. For example, "You are dazzled..." is a no-no.

End the description with the incitement or call to action. This means describing the monsters or visible threats LAST. Once you have presented your incitement, begin adjudication.

Example.

You travel along the trail, going deeper into the stinking swamp, your boots filled with water stained black and brown. The smell of rot fills your nostrils. Suddenly, three tall, gangly humanoids with green wart-covered flesh block your way. They stagger towards you, reaching out with long clawed hands and faintly hissing through pointed teeth.

[Beleriphon]

I think George Orwell had some solid writing advice that can be applied:

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

Short punchy descriptions are more likely to be paid attention do, and the last thing you say should be the most important since it is the thing players will react to first.

Thus we can write:


Three trolls are guarding a long undulating bridge that spans a volumous canyon. You can't see the bottom of the canyon's obsidian depths. Castle Blargalflastendoorf sits beyond the bridge on top of a ridge.

So, what's the most important thing in that description?

Lets try again following Orwell's rules along with my addition.


A long uneven bridge spans a deep canyon you can't see the bottom of. In the distance on top of a ridge is Castle Blargalflastendoorf. Guarding the way over the bridge are three trolls.

Same question, what's most important here?

[Lacco]

I think George Orwell had some solid writing advice that can be applied:

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

Short punchy descriptions are more likely to be paid attention do, and the last thing you say should be the most important since it is the thing players will react to first.

Thus we can write:



So, what's the most important thing in that description?

Lets try again following Orwell's rules along with my addition.



Same question, what's most important here?

Castle Blargalflastendoorf, your goal, sits beyond a rope bridge on top of a ridge. The bridge seems to be guarded by three trolls on the other side. You see their shields bear the symbol of black hand, and they carry spears, but look like they did not notice you yet - they seem to be too busy kicking rocks down the ridge. What do you do?

[Tanarii]

My philosophy on descriptions is priority should be anything that affects player decision making first, pacing / keeping player attention second, and attempting to paint a mental scene last.

So your style sounds pretty good to me.

Modules / adventures often get this wrong. If you compare and contrast early TSR modules with late TSR modules, you can see where boxed text moved from well done to poorly done, as they put more and more priority on trying to paint a mental scene with excessively long descriptions, instead of focusing on communicating important information and accounting for player attention span / good pacing.

Easy example of how to do it wrong: If there's an Ogre napping in a fancy bedroom, don't go on and on about the fanciness of the room and after a minute of descriptions, mention the Ogre. The PCs probably don't notice much other than "A fancy bedroom with a big stinking Ogre napping on the bed." :smallwink:

[tenshiakodo]

As the DM, you are the eyes and ears of the players. They sense nothing unless you tell them. It's for this reason that I hate when DM's try to obfuscate dangers by not giving players all the information. It's like taking candy from a baby.

The most important thing is for players to understand what you mean. Gygaxian prose is cool and all, but using words like "deliquesce" isn't going to explain anything to most people. Yes, obviously, you want to entertain, but at the same time, don't quibble over whether it's a glaive-guisarme or a bohemian ear spoon when you can say "it's a polearm".

[Fiery Diamond]

I think George Orwell had some solid writing advice that can be applied:

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

Short punchy descriptions are more likely to be paid attention do, and the last thing you say should be the most important since it is the thing players will react to first.

Thus we can write:



So, what's the most important thing in that description?

Lets try again following Orwell's rules along with my addition.



Same question, what's most important here?

I've always hated the appeal to authority, especially when it comes to writing. Your first example is, in my opinion, much better than your second, because I enjoyed it more. The person below you who offered their version was even better than either of your examples, and it was longer.

The only one of Orwell's rules I actually agree with is number six, and maybe number five.

[Stonehead]

The drawback of long winded descriptions is that they run the risk of being boring. Boring means players don't retain the information. As such in my experience it is better to just tell the players the tone than to convey it with flowery language. "It's a nice warm sunny day and you feel at ease" is perfectly fine. A long paragraph about how nice the flowers smell is less fine (unless there is something important about the flowers and you want the players to pick flowers).

I'm no literary master, but I've found that longer descriptions are really useful in steering player attention. Describe a door in 2 words, and they won't think twice about it, describe a door in 3 sentences, and they'll go the whole nine yards investigating it. As long as you don't use it to pull a bait-and-switch, it can subtly help keep things on track.


Start with a visual description of the setting. Give details about one or two things only. Add a smell or an atmospheric. Do not tell the players how their characters react to it. For example, "You are dazzled..." is a no-no.

Serious question: Do you think this changes at all if you change the sentence structure? Because if so, I may be guilty of it.

So, while I wouldn't say "You're disgusted by the layer of liquid filth covering the dungeon floor" I have said "The dungeon floor is covered in a disgusting layer of liquid filth in a recent session. The second kind of implies a character reaction, but doesn't outright tell them how they feel. Same thing applies to Cozy Taverns and Impressive Architecture, and Intimidating Muscles. Would you consider it a no-no to use adjectives like this?

[Kurt Kurageous]

Serious question: Do you think this changes at all if you change the sentence structure? Because if so, I may be guilty of it.

So, while I wouldn't say "You're disgusted by the layer of liquid filth covering the dungeon floor" I have said "The dungeon floor is covered in a disgusting layer of liquid filth in a recent session. The second kind of implies a character reaction, but doesn't outright tell them how they feel. Same thing applies to Cozy Taverns and Impressive Architecture, and Intimidating Muscles. Would you consider it a no-no to use adjectives like this?

You can suggest how they might feel. "What some might call 'cozy.' " "Architecture whose style is hard to forget and might inspire awe in others." "A powerfully muscled specimen of a humanoid."

As far as disgusting layer of filth, add a sense to give a reason. "A fecund odor rises from a layer of liquid filth covering the dungeon floor." Maybe ask for a CON save?

Frankly, asking for a save almost always gets an emotional reaction from the player. They don't have to know it's an automatic, especially if you say, "Ooooh, just enough!"

[Easy e]

I have no problem telling a player how their character feels about a thing, but am perfectly fine if they reel me back on it. After all, I do the same to them when I ask them to tell me about stuff.

"You smell delicious meats that make you hungry."

"Nah, I'm actually a vegetarian, so it makes me a bit sick."

"Okay, how about the rest of you? How do you react?"

It still gets the idea across and let's characters lean into it or react to it. The whole point of the description is to get players to react/lean into it anyway.

[Florian]

I alkways used a very pragmatic approach there: Naked information first, you can always go into the details later.

"What you approach seems to be the typical Crane castle and surrounding trade hub you expect to see at a crossroads of two trade routes. What seems odd are the advances barracks sporting the Daidoji mon, nearly a mile before the actual gates leading into the city"

"Oh, the typical style looks such-and-such, the barracks look this-and-that instead"....

[Stonehead]

You can suggest how they might feel. "What some might call 'cozy.' " "Architecture whose style is hard to forget and might inspire awe in others." "A powerfully muscled specimen of a humanoid."

What would you say is the difference between "You walk into a cozy tavern", and "You walk into a tavern that some might call cozy"? One's a bit more cumbersome, but other than that, I don't know if one is really telling the players how their characters feel.

[Kurt Kurageous]

What would you say is the difference between "You walk into a cozy tavern", and "You walk into a tavern that some might call cozy"? One's a bit more cumbersome, but other than that, I don't know if one is really telling the players how their characters feel.

There isn't, and I can agree with you. I was trying to be absolute in not forcing reactions. Truth is, cozy is not usually a feeling as much as an adjective addressing the environment.

[Florian]

What would you say is the difference between "You walk into a cozy tavern", and "You walk into a tavern that some might call cozy"? One's a bit more cumbersome, but other than that, I don't know if one is really telling the players how their characters feel.

In a sense, both are pretty much empty.

What is missing is the stuff that some people associate with "cozy" and would make them react in an aprorpiate way.

"The interior of the bar seems old, but well cared for. The mosaic windows color the last rays of sunshine in deep colors, while an open fireplace already lights the more shadpows region of the tap room. The customers seem to be more working class, the fare they eat along their steins of beer is rustic, put looks hearty and healthy. The partender seems very gruff and the battle axe hanging at the wall behind him seems to make him look even grimmer, but he seems playful when the tiefling barmaid comes close to him".

Ok, that is not exactly short, but gives a lotz of info about what people see and they can decide for themselves if this is the kind of place they/their characters would consider "cosy".

[Mastikator]

In a sense, both are pretty much empty.

What is missing is the stuff that some people associate with "cozy" and would make them react in an aprorpiate way.

"The interior of the bar seems old, but well cared for. The mosaic windows color the last rays of sunshine in deep colors, while an open fireplace already lights the more shadpows region of the tap room. The customers seem to be more working class, the fare they eat along their steins of beer is rustic, put looks hearty and healthy. The partender seems very gruff and the battle axe hanging at the wall behind him seems to make him look even grimmer, but he seems playful when the tiefling barmaid comes close to him".

Ok, that is not exactly short, but gives a lotz of info about what people see and they can decide for themselves if this is the kind of place they/their characters would consider "cosy".

At that point I'd rather show a picture of the tavern. They say pictures are worth more than a thousand words. "You meet at this cozy tavern" *shows picture on screen*. If I talk about a battle axe somewhere it's generally because it's supposed to mean something for the game.

[Florian]

At that point I'd rather show a picture of the tavern. They say pictures are worth more than a thousand words. "You meet at this cozy tavern" *shows picture on screen*. If I talk about a battle axe somewhere it's generally because it's supposed to mean something for the game.

Ah, sorry, I wanted to showcase the difference between describing something as "cozy" und using descriptive elementes that evoke the feeling of "cozy".

[Lacco]

Ah, sorry, I wanted to showcase the difference between describing something as "cozy" und using descriptive elementes that evoke the feeling of "cozy".

And you managed to paint the mental image very well. I'd only add a sentence about the smell of food, and the food (as that is something that almost always hits home with my players), especially "comfort food" and it can evoke the "cozy at home" feeling. Warmth, pillows and furs on benches, a travelling bard playing lute by the fireplace, with the patrons listening and enjoying the music... it all can snowball into this feeling of coziness.

The "show, don't tell" will work too, and it has its time and place: what works for one table might not work for another. Especially if we are talking about players that enjoy immersive fantasy & exploration of the world. If we were talking about very proactive group of players, end-of-world scenario, I'd also not go into this kind of description, but in this case... it works. And it works better than short "it's a cozy inn, look at the picture".

[Easy e]

In a sense, both are pretty much empty.

What is missing is the stuff that some people associate with "cozy" and would make them react in an aprorpiate way.

"The interior of the bar seems old, but well cared for. The mosaic windows color the last rays of sunshine in deep colors, while an open fireplace already lights the more shadpows region of the tap room. The customers seem to be more working class, the fare they eat along their steins of beer is rustic, put looks hearty and healthy. The partender seems very gruff and the battle axe hanging at the wall behind him seems to make him look even grimmer, but he seems playful when the tiefling barmaid comes close to him".

Ok, that is not exactly short, but gives a lotz of info about what people see and they can decide for themselves if this is the kind of place they/their characters would consider "cosy".

Bravo. Nice work.

I guess what I am finding with the folks I play with is that they prefer "Tell, don't show" as my show gets in the way of "their" mental show.

This maybe unique to me and my table though. I have to admit, it caught me by surprise as well.

[Kurt Kurageous]

"The interior of the bar seems old, but well cared for. The mosaic windows color the last rays of sunshine in deep colors, while an open fireplace already lights the more shadowy (edit) region of the tap room. The customers seem to be more working class, the fare they eat along their steins of beer is rustic, put looks hearty and healthy. The bartender seems very gruff and the battle axe hanging at the wall behind him seems to make him look even grimmer, but he seems playful when the tiefling barmaid comes close to him"

This is a really good description that evokes "cozy."

The "show a picture" idea is good, too. However...a picture has details, and players lock on to details and take you places you had no intention of going. A verbal allows me to highlight a particular feature of the scene for the players, whereas I have no control over what the players highlight in their own mind. YMMV here I think.

[Tanarii]

"The interior of the bar seems old, but well cared for. The mosaic windows color the last rays of sunshine in deep colors, while an open fireplace already lights the more shadpows region of the tap room. The customers seem to be more working class, the fare they eat along their steins of beer is rustic, put looks hearty and healthy. The partender seems very gruff and the battle axe hanging at the wall behind him seems to make him look even grimmer, but he seems playful when the tiefling barmaid comes close to him".

Ok, that is not exactly short, but gives a lotz of info about what people see and they can decide for themselves if this is the kind of place they/their characters would consider "cosy".
I fell asleep trying to read it, let alone imagining listening to it. :smalltongue:

I have low tolerance for this kind of thing, but IMX I'm pretty normal for the average gamer when it comes to attention span. And your example is small fry compared to what some adventures want DMs to read. Or the kind of thing some GMs do on their own.

[Florian]

I have low tolerance for this kind of thing, but IMX I'm pretty normal for the average gamer when it comes to attention span. And your example is small fry compared to what some adventures want DMs to read. Or the kind of thing some GMs do on their own.

I don't think there's a blanket answer to this.

Let's say we gather some of the old-schoolers on this board, the one I know we all have more or less read the same books, seen the same movies, so the ones I can assume there is a common ground to work with. Discriptions and explanations would be easy, as it takes only a few keywords to tap into a shared pool of images and imagination.

Now consider taking the same group of players to a L5R campaign, with everything being totoally new and unknown to them, especially the all-important nuances that are going on there. Unless you want to make that into a perception/knowledge roll massacre, you really have to lean into the whole descriptions to, say, point out that a geisha house seems to be run by the scorpions ......

Edit: But yes, in something "normal" like any edition of D&D set in the Forgotten Realms, just point out the important things in a scene and let me do the rest, I don't need to be read a lullaby.....

[Xervous]

I fell asleep trying to read it, let alone imagining listening to it. :smalltongue:

I have low tolerance for this kind of thing, but IMX I'm pretty normal for the average gamer when it comes to attention span. And your example is small fry compared to what some adventures want DMs to read. Or the kind of thing some GMs do on their own.

Depends on the importance of the scene. If we’re going to be here a while (table time) a description is fine. But if we just stopped by for food and sleep, and the GM doesn’t have events planned for turn place, please let it remain ‘cozy inn #3674 that we slept at for a night’. Taking all that time to emphasize the inn makes it seem important. If it’s not important I feel like I’m being misled as a player by unprompted, verbose descriptions.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Depends on the importance of the scene. If we’re going to be here a while (table time) a description is fine. But if we just stopped by for food and sleep, and the GM doesn’t have events planned for turn place, please let it remain ‘cozy inn #3674 that we slept at for a night’. Taking all that time to emphasize the inn makes it seem important. If it’s not important I feel like I’m being misled as a player by unprompted, verbose descriptions.

I agree. Handwaving the unimportant parts is key so it doesn't feel like reading Les Miserables (the unabridged version where Hugo takes chapters to describe the history and construction of the sewers of Paris or the battlefield at Waterloo). Table time is important, and things that are important should take up more of it; things that aren't as important should take up less of it.

[Stonehead]

I agree. Handwaving the unimportant parts is key so it doesn't feel like reading Les Miserables (the unabridged version where Hugo takes chapters to describe the history and construction of the sewers of Paris or the battlefield at Waterloo). Table time is important, and things that are important should take up more of it; things that aren't as important should take up less of it.

I liked @Florian's description, although I agree that you shouldn't flout Chekhov's Gun and describe at length things that have no importance in the story. I do though think that atmosphere is important to the story. Like, sometimes you want to convey to the players that Palette Town's tavern is nice and safe, especially if you want them to know that some other city's tavern is sketchy and dangerous. Some thug cheating at cards, or taking gold from the pocket of the man who passed out from drinking to much isn't important to the story itself. It might be worth describing though, so the players know what kind of place it is.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I thought liked @Florian's description, although I agree that you shouldn't flout Chekhov's Gun and describe at length things that have no importance in the story. I do though think that atmosphere is important to the story. Like, sometimes you want to convey to the players that Palette Town's tavern is nice and safe, especially if you want them to know that some other city's tavern is sketchy and dangerous. Some thug cheating at cards, or taking gold from the pocket of the man who passed out from drinking to much isn't important to the story itself. It might be worth describing though, so the players know what kind of place it is.

Depends. And yeah, there's a scale here from "every bit of this is critical" to "meh, they're stopping for the night and nothing's gonna happen".