Ex: Setting a combat scene
Entering the expansive mausoleum you find it illuminated merely by a pair of candles; they flicker like flames but they radiate no heat an cast off no smoke. The central sepulcher is composed of a wrought-iron crib with four grand posterns, within which rests a sarcophagus of stone. An iron lid tops this wit a relief of the paladin lord contained within. This bower stands dead in the center of the vault.
Four pennants, in line with the sepulcher's posts, hang on the side walls. They depict the banner of the paladin and his ruined castle outside; a brass dragon rampant on a black field trimmed in red. The trim of each is shot through with brass flames. On the opposite wall from your entryway hangs a tapestry displaying a famous battle of the fallen noble. On the far left he hovers in a cloudy sky while far to the right looms the massive blue dragon Ballathunda; between them is only thunderheads though it seems an inordinate amount of space.
This is a 30 x 40 chamber. There is only the entry door, no windows, 2 everburning candles (50 GP ea) behind the 5 x 10 sepulcher. The ceiling is 15'. There's the 4 pennants on the wall (10 GP ea) and the tapestry (100 GP).
1. Secret door: there is a section of stairs, directly behind the sepulcher, sunken into the floor. This stairwell is concealed by a block in the floor which lowers and separates into additional steps (DC 20 Perception). Suggested methods of accessing are (but not limited to):
a. Folding the two characters of the tapestry together a la Mad Magazine
b. Pulling all 4 pennants at once
c. Brute force (DC 21 Str Check)
2. Reward: if PCs find and access the secret door w/out the use of the Take 20 rule, offer them experience equal to a CR 1 challenge
If you had a party of 4 1st level PCs played by players who you'd only gamed with for a short while, how would you describe this scene? Would knowing the players better modify your descriptive style?
So...how do I GM in PFS?
So...how do I GM in PFS?
Yeah, let's start there. Do you say "you're in a 10 x 10 room; there's a green humanoid..." someone rolls a knowledge: local "... goblin. He has a sword that's glowing..." couple more rolls "... it's a +1 sword. Roll initiative." or do you get SUPER descriptive, or find some middle ground?
I'm asking b/cause I thought I'd add some flair to my home game, adding some descriptiveness to magic items. Instead of "you find a potion of Cure Light Wounds" I said "you find a potion with effervescent vapors that shimmer like the cleric's channeled energy. Upon detecting it' aura you hear the faint song of the divine and a glyph forms in it's glamour; a Conjuration suggesting the potion's consumption will summon the nascent vitality of the heavens."
All I did was confound the player who likes RP and descriptiveness; they still haven't used the potion.
I try to use pictures when I can. Though to be honest I over focus on pacing than description. Ironically I enjoy more detailed flavorful description though in practice I hit the relevant points and let the players start to interact. I need keep the feel of solid pace but still get the drapes and table dressing in the story.
|
I don't know what it is, but I always find fluff really distracting. To the point where I almost wonder if I'm playing the wrong game.
When I come to a room, I do want descriptions like that, but I'm really more interested in the crunch. The storytelling-like wording just does nothing for me except distract me and make me lose details; I actually have to concentrate to see past it.
I'd reword your version of the fluff to:
The rest I wouldn't even go into unless the players asked for closer inspection.
I actually think telling new players that they can ask to inspect things closer is one of the most underrated things a GM can teach new players. I think a lot of players don't realise they can do that and just assume they've been told everything they can find out, unless it's hidden or something.
"You enter a mausoleum. There's a big stone sarcophagus in the central sepulcher and it looks like the paladin lord's. There's a pair of candles already lit, four pennants with the paladin lord's heraldry on the side walls, and a tapestry depicting him fighting a blue dragon on the back wall."
Generally, I avoid excessive detail. People's eyes usually glaze over, the pace of the story is ruined, and it doesn't really add anything in the end.
I tend to say too much, and draw too much on the battle map. Half of my rooms equal your example, half have less. Depends. I can get pretty caught up in gory descriptions of the dynamics of battles, so I have to watch myself there.
I try to include words keyed to all five senses, or at least smells and , "You feel a cool dampness on your skin, and the stale air isn't moving, so it just kinda sticks to you... "
Do you ever find yourself carried away in NPC descriptions and interactions then as well? I've been GMing for a really long time and I still seem to go long when narrating/describing things.
There's also the question of gameplay versus roleplay, at least when it comes to magic items. If I want to keep the game going, I should have the party find "A potion of healing and a Cloak of Resistance +1" and be done with it, yet the RP side of my brain compels me to come up with an elaborate description of auras and sigils and such for my one player's Detect Magic and mad skilz of Know: Arcana and Spellcraft. As shown above though, I just end up confusing him when really with as smart/skilled as his character is, he should just be able to recognize this stuff right?
Heck, when it comes to magic item description, I lose my mind. I even began representing auras found w/detect magic in all 5 senses. The player opened a potion and the aura revealed itself as a song with beautiful but unintelligible language and a bow with a +1 enchantment placed on it by a cleric of Erastil that, when detected, smelled of the wild forests and emanated a cool woodland breeze.
...
I have a problem.
My first DM was a master of describing things, and I've learned over the years to be really, really good at it. I've had players actually applaud after describing a scene and I've had them leave the table when describing something less than appealing. I think that as a DM this is my greatest talent.
Your descriptions are awesome, Mark Hoover...but if you find them bewildering or boring your players, you either have to adapt to a style that suits them better, through talking with them and finding out what they like...
...or finding players who are better suited to engaging back with you in such descriptive ways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To answer your first question, I would find a middle ground between the two. If there's going to be a fight here, the crunch is something that the PCs need to know.
The attitudes and tendencies of my players would also influence my decision, yes. If they are a very fluff oriented group, I would try and expand on the little things more, and give my all to immerse them as much as possible. If the group just wants to hit things, I will not stop them from doing that, either. Both are fun.
Personally, the other descriptive examples you've given bother me. These I find to be too over the top. If I was new to your table, I probably wouldn't know what to make of it. If you were a friend, I'd probably be irritated with you. If you were a really good friend, I'd probably come around to your side of the table and smack you upside the head for wasting my time with such silliness. There's a point where description stops being intriguing and immersing and becomes flowery and abstruse.
Considering the very high magic setting of most campaigns, to go into such detail about each little doodad is going to get very aggravating very fast. Saving your best stuff for the really important scenes is going to leave everyone more satisfied with the content of the adventure.
It's important to remember that you are playing a game, not just telling a story. It's very important to remember that you are playing said game with other people. If you spend the whole session going into extreme detail about the various differences between each dark and gloomy room of the dungeon, it's likely going to be a very boring adventure for your players. All they're doing is listening to you enjoy yourself. They aren't involved.
Obviously there are exceptions to this, but it doesn't seem like your group is one of those. If they were, they'd probably be reciprocating.
Finding a balance and making sure both you and your players are having fun is of the utmost importance. If you think that you're confounding your players, then you should ask them what they like. Then you should try to present an adventure that scratches everyone's gaming itch.
I'd start by reading the first fluff paragraph, and then build more descriptions based on whatever actions the party took to examine the room further.
If they started asking for numerical values, I'd give them what their character felt was a good guess, which could vary from character to character depending on various factors such as int/wis scores and skills, or whether they happen to be carrying a measuring device ;)
Or, if using a battlemat, I'd sketch it out while talking without quite as much description ("there's a sarcophaghus... here" <drawdrawdraw>)
I rely heavily on visual aids to set the physical scene and pepper it with adjectives to help set the mood of what they're seeing. If I have nothing to actually show them I start with crunch but try to emphasize anything that would stand out or is important to the story.
I never gave my approach much thought, frankly. I suppose I'm more in the utilitarian camp, describing the basics and maybe a few things to set the tone.
I go back and forth. Still trying to find which is right for me after god knows how many years of gaming.
I tend to be highly descriptive and my players seem to enjoy and prefer that.
Mark: I think I would enjoy your flavorful description better in a play-by-post than a live game. Either way though, I'd want my focus drawn to the big details up-front while leaving the smaller stuff to additional inquiry. Also you seem to be giving away several details that I would expect the PCs to have to discover or reason out: magic candles, what's in the sarcophagus, historical lore, etc. While Spellcraft and K: Arcana might see lots of use, it would be nice to reward those with ranks in K: Nobility/History with a return on investment rather than just giving away a moment in the spotlight for those PCs.
My main critique though is that for all the great prose, the players probably still have a foggy mental image of the chamber. For one thing, I'd foresee my players getting confused at the notion of an iron crib with postern gates and then missing everything else that follows. ;)
Now I'm not sure if you accompanied your description with a map, but if I read your 'box text' to my players without one, it would have been for naught. (They'd immediately ask me to map-out the area while calling out important features as I go.) IMO, Avatar's description conveys information more apt to keep the game going, though my personal preference would be to re-add some clearer fluff.
You enter an expansive mausoleum 30-feet wide and 40 deep, its walls dappled in shadow. In the center of the chamber, four pillars anchor the corners of a wrought-iron fence that rises 15-feet to the ceiling above, each wall of it inset with an ornate gate. Within this enclosure, a pair of flickering candles stand atop the iron lid of a stone sarcophagus, its surface carved in the likeness of a knight.
On the side walls are pennants bearing a noble's heraldry — one adjacent to each of the four pillars. Hanging from the far wall, a 20-foot wide tapestry depicts a noble fallen on the battlefield beneath a cloudy sky; his spirit is shown hovering at the far left while a massive blue dragon stands on the far right of the scene.
Not much shorter, perhaps, but there's a good bit more information there to help paint the same scene for all of the players. Descriptions of the heraldry, the identity of the dragon, the nature of the candles, etc. are all left until after Perception, Knowledge, and other checks have been made to allow for player engagement. A few additions to pique other senses might be the echoing of the character's footsteps, whether the air is musty from being long-sealed or if it is unexpectedly fresh (which might hint at other recent visitors).
Thoughts?
I generally meld the two.
A bit of description, a bit of mechanics.
From my PbP (after Perception checks for specific details like entryways were made and such):
It is a large mansion, with very Tian themes.
It is surrounded by a large wall, roughly 20 feet high and made of stone. It has been plastered and smoothed so that it is nigh impossible to get a handhold, and would be very difficult to climb without a rope and grappling hook.
The two also find that there IS rooftop access, of sorts. There are a pair of watchtowers within leaping distance of the man's yard, that would be fairly easy to climb.
Unfortunately, the towers are nearly 50 feet tall, and thus any leap from them onto the ground over the wall would be quite painful. You are also unable to see whether there are guards at the top of this tower or not.
Jorriko and Korak are hard pressed to find many other entry points. Chen is paranoid and obsessed with security.
I think it gets the point across mechanics wise (wall is 20 feet high and would require a difficult Climb check to get up, and so on), as well as setting the scene fairly well without being too wordy or lengthy that people lose interest.
It's best to avoid florid prose and focus on setting the scene.
Note, that's not a strictly utilitarian description like your "crunch" example above — setting the scene can be honing in on some aspect of "fluff" and just describing it concisely and vividly.
Just a word like "skittering" when the players are in a high mountain pass can really set the the scene.
It's an art. I find that trying to describe something too much makes the players' eyes glaze over. Much better to spend a sentence or two making things feel real (and distinguishing it from all the other scenes) and then move on to the interaction... but be sure to keep peppering the interactive parts with more vivid description. Short and sweet.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For combat, the Strain-Injury hit point variant has really upped my description game.
I have a short list of descriptions for strain (things like armor, locking swords in a parry, being backed off balance, etc), and I try to rotate through the list arbitrarily. Every attack action gets its own description, and for full attacks I usually wait to see the outcome of the entire attack run (plus rend, etc) to aid in the description.
Crits become injuries in the variant, so any confirmed crit is a great opportunity to describe a really grisly wound... something I wouldn't ordinarily be comfortable doing for every single successful hit.
Nobody describes fights better than Robert E. Howard. Nobody.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So here's what I've realized; the "fluff" version is usually what I write down when I'm making up my adventure but in practtice I end up paraphrasing, hitting highlights. @ Laith Erickson: you make an excellent point here. I shouldn't give up detail that would normally be gathered by a skill check. I think I inadvertently do that often which is partly why people always forget to use Knowledge skills in my games.
M E L: I use your strain/injury variant, but my combats have always been descriptive. Like DMCal I've been applauded for descriptiveness, but around combat more than anything else. It hasn't happened for a while though. I suspect I have maturing players and the internet to thank for that but still...
As Proi-boy puts it: I think I need balance. I should avoid extremes and focus on just enough to keep them interested. Something closer to the "Crunch" version with perhaps a couple details to peak their interest.
PS: if anyone wants to use said scene, by all means. Be sure to write back w/your results...
Unless you do it once or twice to be funny.
"I rolled a 32 on my Perception."
*In depth description of every tiny detail of every crevice and crack in the wall, frayed line in the tapestries, etc.*
"Oh I forgot to mention while your character was enthralled with the minute details of the setting, 5 angry orcs snuck up on and surrounded him."
When I am running an encounter I lead into the encounter with the "fluff" mostly in an attempt to create a way for the players to visualize what is going on. But as I'm describing it, I am also either drawing it out, pulling up a computer image, or placing the actual terrain elements that will be used in combat. Using pre-drawn maps and 3D terrain elements allows me to combine the "fluff" and "crunch" of the setting simultaneously.
One of the GMs I play with pretty much only describes the fluff and we have to ask for him to draw details so we can work out tactics. I find that makes combat longer and sometimes more confusing.
I tried something new last game. This was with a group that is in part a bit green.
So a pc was captured by Sahughin, then as they were escaping on a beach seized by some ogre deep one thing and thrown deep into the sea, for later collection.
As I described what happened and the hitting the water and then going under, I gave the player some salt water to drink, which I had prepared earlier.
They liked the extra effort, saying "this is good. I am really there now".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have this weird combo of d20 Call of Cthulhu and Vampire: The Masquerade going on as one of the games I play in, and the game master had the PCs drink some vile concoction in a recent game. He brought a mixture of his own consisting mostly of chocolate balsamic vinegar that we all had to take a sip of. Great props!
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tried something new last game. This was with a group that is in part a bit green.
So a pc was captured by Sahughin, then as they were escaping on a beach seized by some ogre deep one thing and thrown deep into the sea, for later collection.
As I described what happened and the hitting the water and then going under, I gave the player some salt water to drink, which I had prepared earlier.
They liked the extra effort, saying "this is good. I am really there now".
You know you're doing well when you can make a player voluntarily drink salt water.
HAHAHAHAHHA! Thanks Avatar-1.