Show don't tell?

[clehrich]

I should think that this distinction, in general terms, is a loose division based on who formulates meaning.  On one end, you have the narrative voice telling the audience how they are to interpret, while on the other end you have the narrative perspective showing the audience something that they are to interpret.

There can be no question of simple valuation here, as several people have pointed out: both are necessary devices in almost all forms of representation.  The big issue becomes the area between, in which one "loads" the representation to force a given interpretation, without actually stating overtly ("telling") the desired interpretation.

For example, if we show a character cackling as he kills puppies, we are not actually "telling" the audience that this is a Bad Guy.  But we've so loaded what we "show" that the interpretation is nearly a foregone conclusion.  This is a stock device in RPGs: you have relatively strong knowledge of the audience's preconceptions, since you know them and the setting well, and so it's relatively easy to represent a situation in such a way that they will interpret it as you desire.  Applied very strongly, this is called railroading.

There is also the opposite extreme, in which everything is presented dispassionately, "flat," requiring the audience to insert meaning -- very often this is done precisely in order to shake up the audience by forcing them either to interpret strongly (become active) or to challenge the representation itself.

So I would think that the point of showing rather than telling in RPGs is that it draws effort from the players, in that it requires them to do the interpretation work.  If you go too far with this, you get players who don't care, because they have to put in so much initial effort that the whole thing seems daunting or simply uninteresting.  If you go too far in the other direction, you also have players who don't care, but this time it's because there's nothing for them to do.

[Le Joueur]

BACK to RPGs
What is wrong with the following circumstances?

Careful, don't bring value judgements into a discussion like this or it'll have this tendancy to devolve into 'what I like' being spoken of as 'what real gaming is.'

As far as I can tell, this thread is exploring some of the more interesting (and less written about) ways that gaming can 'show.'  As far back as the early post war-gaming games, role-playing games have done the 'tell' thing.  Nothing is wrong with either.  Comparisons here are to demostrate what 'showing' is by contrasting it with 'telling;' they are not meant to imply that either is in any way 'better.'

So there is nothing "wrong" with those circumstances; there isn't anything 'right' about them either.  We aren't judging here.  A post of nothing but 'tell' examples doesn't provide much advancement for this topic (I believe) unless it is a request for analysis or a challenge to parallel.

Let's drop the 'wrong/right' thing and really delve into what 'showing' is for role-playing games.  If you want a 'telling is better' thread, go ahead and start one; I think it could be quite revealing.

Fang Langford

[M. J. Young]

Johannes is obviously right; in a verbal communication form you can't really "show" anything.

On the other hand, this aphorism, "Show, don't tell," seems to have sprung up not initially in television or film but in literature, which is even more strictly limited to verbal communication than RPGs are. After all, in an RPG, I can use body language, facial expression, props, miniatures, maps, and more to "show" things that are easily understood visually than verbally. That's not, however, what the saying means--quite obviously, since it started in literature.

I'm going to suggest that it really means, "Imply, don't state."

Someone used the illustration of an alcoholic; I'm going to borrow it to use again.

Bob is an alcoholic; we are told, "Bob is an alcoholic. Every night he drinks heavily. Because he is an alcoholic, he rarely experiences that disoriented incoherence, but simply drinks until he passes out, then cannot be awakened by anyone or anything for several hours, until he awakens in the morning, usually without a hangover."

Now we "know" that Bob is an alcoholic. During play, however, we come back home, and it's never mentioned that Bob takes a drink, or that he passes out, or that anyone has tried to awaken him unsuccessfully. We've been told that it's a fact of the story, but in play it never really comes up.

In the alternative, we are never told that Bob is an alcoholic. Rather, we get back to home base, and are told, "Bob grabs a beer, and downs it in about a minute, and is getting his second while he offers you one. Before you've finished lingering over your first, he's on his fourth. He continues talking about the days adventures; he seems to hold his liquor well--his speech isn't slurred, he's still making perfect sense, and when he walks back to the bar for another drink he doesn't stagger or stumble. In fact, one of your companions who has had too much bumps into him, and Bob catches him and helps him get his seat, suggests that he's probably had too much, and then gets another for himself. You've lost track of the number of beers Bob has had. He tells you he's really looking forward to checking out that other area tomorrow, then leans back, closes his eyes, and in a moment you realize he's snoring. You try to wake him, but he is dead to the world. The innkeeper says he does this every night, and it's no problem--he'll be fine in the morning. You pay your tab and retire to your room."

It was never stated that Bob is an alcoholic; but we know it, more surely than we knew it when we were told. It's clearly part of the events of the story, and not some background statement about the character that you'd only know if you read his sheet. It's implied, not stated, but in a way that makes it quite clear.

If you've seen the fighter slay the dragon, you have a much clearer picture of him as a great warrior than you do if someone tells you that he's an X-level fighter with Y hit points, or even if they tell you that he could go toe-to-toe with a dragon. You've "seen" it, in a game sense.

I'm all for telling. In my D&D games, I calculate average damage per round and use it to determine which weapon is best for each character in different situations, and which character is best in different kinds of combat, precisely because it's not something I can easily "see" as I could if everyone were real. If I can tell you that Bob's great armor class will keep him alive in combat longer than Bill's incredible hit points because I've done the math, or that Jim can kill an ogre faster with his arrows than Joe can with his sword, those are things that my character would probably be able to get a feel for within the game reality that I can only capture by what I've somewhere called "abstraction to the concrete", putting numbers to it. But if you can give me the feeling that my character has, that's usually a better way to communicate the reality of the game world.

--M. J. Young

[Marco]

I'm all for telling. In my D&D games, I calculate average damage per round and use it to determine which weapon is best for each character in different situations, and which character is best in different kinds of combat, precisely because it's not something I can easily "see" as I could if everyone were real. If I can tell you that Bob's great armor class will keep him alive in combat longer than Bill's incredible hit points because I've done the math, or that Jim can kill an ogre faster with his arrows than Joe can with his sword, those are things that my character would probably be able to get a feel for within the game reality that I can only capture by what I've somewhere called "abstraction to the concrete", putting numbers to it. But if you can give me the feeling that my character has, that's usually a better way to communicate the reality of the game world.

--M. J. Young

That's why I said "telling" was using game mechanics and "showing" was in-game description. And this is why I consider the rules the "fabric" or "canvas" of the game.

-Marco

[Tim C Koppang]

I just wanted to jump in here and make a point about literature and the written word.  People seem to be implying that verbal communication affords the speaker all sorts of communicative tools not available to writers.  MJ wrote: "I can use body language, facial expression, props..."  This is true.  But, of course a writer also has tools at his disposal not available in any other medium, or just as easily employed.  Think about page layout, pictures, and visual punning on words for just a few examples.  There's no rule stating that writers have to restrict themselves to straightforward prose.  The point is: suck as many representation techniques from your medium as possible.  RPGs are no exception.

When it comes to showing MJ's example hit it on the mark: "In the alternative, we are never told that Bob is an alcoholic..."  What's interesting to watch is a player's lack of confidence in his descriptions.  The player will deliver the above narrative, but squirm around in his seat afterwards, worried that no one "got it."  This of course in turn, causes him to blurt out explicitly, "Bob is an alcoholic."  Then he's telling.  It's a subtle and difficult skill to master, this "showing."  It takes a lot of practice to imply an idea or character trait vs. just plain saying what you are trying to get across.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

But, of course a writer also has tools at his disposal not available in any other medium, or just as easily employed.  Think about page layout, pictures, and visual punning on words for just a few examples.  

...................................You
......................................mean
.............................................like
........................................that
...........................................part
...............................................in
................................................Alice
......................................................in
.......................................................Wonderland
................................................where
.............................................the
................................................words
........................................................themselves
.......................................................................fell
..........................................................................into
............................................................................the
.............................................................................rabbit
.........................................................................hole?

(dots added because the Forge forum software edits out spaces. Just pretend they ain't there.)

The point is: suck as many representation techniques from your medium as possible.  RPGs are no exception.

My point exactly. Thanks for stating it so clearly.

It takes a lot of practice to imply an idea or character trait vs. just plain saying what you are trying to get across.

I've noticed a certain amount of uncertainty about oneself at the table along these lines.

Player: "My character goes up to the innkeeper and tries to get some infomation."

vs.

Player: "My character, Olaf the Blunt stomps over to the bar and bellows "Oy, innkeeper! What do you know about that scum Dirty Dan?"

I could see many falling into the assumption that the second example is really roleplaying.

[efindel]

I've been playing in a lot of PBEM games recently, the main one being a Buffy the Vampire Slayer game.  In those, I've noticed that using the written word for roleplaying can make a lot of things easy that are difficult in spoken, face-to-face play.

Playing Buffy, I found myself at times naturally wanting to express things in a pseudo-screenplay format, complete with things like directions to have the camera pan around a particular character, notes as to what is on and off camera, mention of zooms, slow-motion, etc.  Most especially, I found the cinematic device of not showing something, but simply implying that it's happening, to be very useful.  

I've also found that flashbacks can work well in a PBEM context -- just as would be done in film, instead of having a character describe something that happened, have him/her start to do it, then cut to a flashback, then cut back to the character finishing the story.  Again, that can be done in a spoken game, but I've found that it comes more naturally to me in a written form.

Early on, I made a conscious decision that since I was trying to do a semi-screenplay format, I wouldn't directly reveal my character's thoughts.  In some PBEM games, it's common for people to write out what their characters are thinking at times, just as an author might in a novel.  Instead, I used flashbacks, the character talking to himself, and "screen editing" in my narration (e.g., describing a broad shot, then a closeup of what the character's focusing on, and then a reaction shot from the character) to try to show those things.

It's been an interesting exercise in "show, don't tell", as I've been trying to avoid saying things like "AJ looks angry", in favor of "AJ grits his teeth and clenches his fists".  Which I suppose is shading over into what a a film director or actor would be deciding rather than what would be in the screenplay, really.

--Travis

[erithromycin]

From a LARP I run:

A: "I'm still trying to get used to the idea of people being served alcoholic drinks in public."

B: "Pardon?"

A: "Sorry, I forgot. Pleased to meet you. Captain Jonathon Boyd, Royal Corps of Engineers, Alexandria. Just arrived from Egypt yesterday."

...

B: "So you were an engineer?"

A: "Yes. Nothing exciting, mainly fortifications. You know, cover, defilades, all that dirt in tidy heaps."

B: "Really? My character has Military Science Three, so he'll say things like 'so you did it this way?' and so on."

One of these is showing, one of these is telling.

- drew

Edit: I should never use tags. I mean, I can't, but I shouldn't try. Ever.

[quozl]

When "show, don't tell" was used in my writing class it meant to show what a character is feeling, not tell it.  So the following examples are the kinds of things that were discussed:

Joe was angry at the other driver.

This tells how Joe feels.

Joe yelled obscenities at the other driver.

This... shows how Joe feels.

- Walt

I think it applies directly to describing NPC's in an RPG.