Show don't tell?

[Airshipjones]

So, how do we reconcile the old writers adage of 'show don't tell' with the basic RPG idea that we are often describing our characters actions?

I find that much of this comes out better with deep immersion in a game, but that doesn't always happen.  Showing, or even describing with vivid descriptions, can create a bridge between the show and the tell when we can't act out the actions or emotions.  Are there other ways I'm not think of?

[ThreeGee]

Hey Troy,

"Show, not tell," is a big thing for me in terms of LARPs. As you say, it has a great deal to do with immersion. The whole point of a LARP is that everything is, within reason, actualized. When you resort to telling, you might as well be sitting around a table.

The technical difference, in terms of roleplaying, is that show is first-person and tell is third-person. I walk up to the baker. 'How much for a loaf o' bread?' 'Tuppence,' says the gamemaster. 'I only have one-pence and a couple bits,' says I. 'Good eno',' says the gamemaster. As compared to, 'Bob buys bread.'

Okay, I am stacking the deck, but there is a time and place for both. Show when appropriate, but do not be afraid to tell when there is nothing to gain by staying in character and going through the motions.

Later,
Grant

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

The problem with "Show don't tell" is that it is endlessly qualifiable. Many a movie or film tells us, rather than shows us - people simply forget to mention or reference these moments in film school.

For example, at the end of The Usual Suspects, a series of printed matter makes up the most important sequence of realizations by a main character. Yes - printed words, on the screen. You're supposed to read them, and then a voice-over comes on, reading them for you and relating their importance to the earlier scenes in the movie. The final voice-over lays out the point of the movie in very simple, clear terms. It tells you.

Why isn't this objected to in discussions? Because it works. People focus on "telling" only when it doesn't work.

So let's see: you can show something, but only if it means something important and isn't too much (too much camera-waving, too much car chase is boring). And you can tell something, but only if it means something important and isn't too much (no thematic yip-yap, as audiences can construct themes on their own).

Ultimately, it boils down to: Show, if it works best, or tell, if it works best, which is not a very useful rubric.

When you move all this to the medium of role-playing, things get even more tricky - because it's more like radio in some ways, in terms of sounds and references to sounds/sensations rather than purely imagining them as with literature or than seeing them and hearing them as on film. It's also different from all other entertainment media, because in role-playing, the literal act of imaginative creation, putting the imagined events into the shared-space, is negotiable, which isn't the case for other media.

Best,
Ron

[Nathaniel]

I believe you can do this exactly as an author would.  It would involve some acting and making statements about what you're trying to say instead of actually saying it.  Anything you can do in written text, you should be able to do with spoken word.  In addition you have tone of voice, facial expression, body language and slew of other tools.  It requires the other people in the group to be a little more on board with the whole acting thing, but you can do it.

Nathaniel

[Walt Freitag]

So, how do we reconcile the old writers adage of 'show don't tell' with the basic RPG idea that we are often describing our characters actions?

It's already reconciled by default. Describing characters' actions or narrating events, in prose storytelling, is showing. As opposed to telling, which is narrating "facts." Example:

"Joe was angry at the other driver."  -- telling
"Joe yelled obscenities at the other driver." -- showing
"Joe yelled at the other driver, 'You fuckin' moron, watch where yer going!'" -- showing

Of course it's not that simple, but that's the basic idea. The other important point is that quite a bit of "telling" is all but inevitable in prose narrative; the adage doesn't really mean "never tell" but rather "show more often."

- Walt

[Le Joueur]

With all due respect, Ron, I think Troy was asking what counts as 'show' in role-playing games.  Not what's best.  Not which is better.  Which is what.  A pretty simple question I thought; haven't got an answer myself.  I'm just listening.

Let's not let this discussion about 'what is show, versus tell' get bogged down in value judgements.

Fang Langford

p. s. I don't remember any voice 'telling' on the video of The Usual Suspects, I saw it as so cool I was calling all my 'phantom mastermind' characters after 'Verbal' for weeks.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

What counts as showing in an RPG? This is not easy to answer, really, because RPGs are too varied to be able to say what anything is in an RPG.

What is showing in the first place? I'm sure we all have our own views of what this little adage means. To me, it means a sort of heightening of the elements being described. Let's look at Walter's examples above:
[quote="wfreitag"Joe yelled obscenities at the other driver."
.....
"Joe yelled at the other driver, 'You fuckin' moron, watch where yer going!'"[/quote]
I purposefully omitted one example so we can have one telling and one showing. And in spite of what Walter said, I think this sentence is more telling that showing.

Notice how the first example, the telling feels very pedestrian. We know who did what, but there's little emotional weight to it. It sounds like a minor paragraph out of a history book.

"Many small children were burned alive."

"'My baby! My child! Oh god! No! The smell! I'll never forget that smell!'"

OK, this was actually a lousy example because there's plenty of emotion, we aren't told much. You know what's going on because of the preceeding example. This is a good point. What's being referred to in show and tell is craft and art. They are two things that will indeed be in every story and to try to remove either is folly.

Craft is the more pedestrian workings, but they are wholy necessary to make the thing work. Art refers to the touches that make it pleasing. You can think of it like four walls and a roof is the craft, done well the building stands up. Art is the decorating.

So "show don't tell" is just a reminder to writers to apply some Art to their Craft. I remember a similar saying "Don't say the woman is screaming. Bring her out and let her scream." This conveys similar advice.

[Johannes]

Forgive me.

Aargh! There is no showing and telling dichotomy in verbal representation. Either you tell what happened or you tell what a happening would have looked/sounded/felt/etc. like to somebody who was present. Both use words. Both are telling. This dichotomy is ancient and wrong.

It is more to the point to talk about summary/act, tense and different focalizations (PoV in a board sense). Maybe narrative window could be a usefull term also.

[Marco]

My thought:

Showing vs. Telling is about the *medium* (in prose the medium is text, of course, but it's wrapped around narrative pacing, point of view, and language useage).

In RPG's the medium ... the canvas is the rules--so showing vs. telling might be about abstracting from the rules (to show) vs. using the rules (to tell).

If that's the case (and I haven't given it much thought): "He's a 20th level fighter" is telling. Showing is describing his history or some amazing feat or whatever.

Same applies to any rules-situation: the use of rules terminology is clearer--and often that's superior *IMO* to more flavorful but less exacting description.

-Marco

[epweissengruber]

The are RPG applications of this old literary warhorse.

Forgive me.

Aargh! There is no showing and telling dichotomy in verbal representation.

True.

But the showing v. telling distinction was part of a critical program to strip overt moral or philosophical commentary from the writing of litterature.  Think of Dickens calling for the readers' sympathy for Tiny Tim or Little Dorrit.  Later authors and critics tried to stop this kind of writing.  Frex, James Joyce described the writer as a kind of god, sitting back and letting his fictional world unfold without offering any kind of commentary.

Maybe, RPGers who are fanatic about cutting out any metagame commentary or out of character discussion are beholden to an old literary prejudice.

After all, artistic experimenters like Brecht have tried to break this old prejudice.  Perhaps RPG innovators are also working against this longstanding prejudice.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

In RPG's the medium ... the canvas is the rules--

I disagree with this very, very strongly.

Before I get into that, I just want to clarify that I'm talking about the game in play as the art medium. Sure there may be an art to the creation of a game text, but this, to me, completely hinges upon actually being played.

So from my perspective, at least, the rules are not the canvas at all. The rules are but one of the tools applied to that canvas. The canvas is the shared imaginative space and the rules are the means by which the group agrees what is in that space or not. So the rules are like the painbrushes in painting or like the rules of grammar in prose. A tool for applying paint to the canvas, and there can be well-made, beautiful tools.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Think of Dickens calling for the readers' sympathy for Tiny Tim or Little Dorrit.  

Having never read Dickens, this went over my head. Let me see if I understand correctly. In the text of A Christmas Carol, Dickens actually asks or tells the reader to feel sympathy for Tiny Tim.

Paraphrasing: "Look at the little crippled boy. Isn't he sweet? You feel sorry for him, don't you. Come on. He's a poor little crippled boy with a good heart. Of course your sympathise with him."

There is actually something this ham handed in Christmas Carol?

[epweissengruber]

Good lord, yes!  But many 18th century novelists address the reader as well -- "gentle reader, do not doubt that our heroine did not fall," etc.  Jane Austen is always addressing her readers.

Think of Dickens calling for the readers' sympathy for Tiny Tim or Little Dorrit.  

There is actually something this ham handed in Christmas Carol?

It is only ham handed if we fall into the modernist trap of assuming that one must always show and not tell.  Rhetoric, emotional appeal, didactic teaching -- why shouldn't they be in literature? They were for centuries.

BACK to RPGs
What is wrong with the following circumstances?

- GM says "this is a tale about the price you pay if you pursue revenge"
- GM "don't worry guys, this is a flashback episode so of course all of you will make it out alive.  How you make it out is another question ..."
- GM "tonite you guys are going to learn what it is really like to be a Roman slave running away for his freedom.

Nothing, I say.

Forge posters have been exploring how to make premise and them an integral part of world and scenario design.  Writers used to be very explicit about them

[Walt Freitag]

Let's look at Walter's examples above:

Joe yelled obscenities at the other driver."
.....
"Joe yelled at the other driver, 'You fuckin' moron, watch where yer going!'"

I purposefully omitted one example so we can have one telling and one showing. And in spite of what Walter said, I think this sentence is more telling that showing.

Notice how the first example, the telling feels very pedestrian. We know who did what, but there's little emotional weight to it. It sounds like a minor paragraph out of a history book.

Heh, well, I did say it was more complicated than that. Fact is, every statement tells some things and shows others. Let's bring back all three examples.

Joe was angry at the other driver.

This tells how Joe feels. It shows something about Joe's personality (that he reacted with anger to a certain, presumably previously stated, stimululs). It says nothing about how he acted.

Joe yelled obscenities at the other driver.

This tells how Joe acted. It shows how Joe feels. (And something about Joe's personality.) It says nothing about what he said.

Joe yelled at the other driver, 'You fuckin' moron, watch where yer going!

This tells what Joe said. It shows how Joe acted. (And how Joe feels. And something about Joe's personality.) It says nothing about how others on the scene reacted to Joe.

We could keep going forever:

Joe yelled at the other driver, using such obscene language that a mother standing on the sidewalk covered her young daughter's ears.

This tells how the mother reacted. It shows the nature of what Joe said. (And how Joe acted. And how Joe feels. And something about Joe's personality. E-I-E-I-O).

So, there definitely is no dichotomy, unless and until one specifies exactly what information is in question as being shown or told. I cannot write a sentence that is entirely telling or entirely showing. But I can, given a particular fact, write a sentence that tells it and another that shows it.

Another problem: when applying the idea of "showing" to RPG play, two meanings of showing can get conflated: the idea of informing by implication or exhibiting of evidence, as a persuasive stylistic technique; and the idea of authoritatively proving. The second idea could lead to "showing" in RPG play being associated with authoritative action upon the shared imaginative space, while "telling" is any form of informing short of that, such as describing constraints on what may be attempted. The problem with that is that different types of play and players have entirely different ideas of what is authoritative. To some, this type of "showing" requires the confirmation of a rules mechanism. I can narrate all I want about how my character drinks all the time, but what really shows he's an alcoholic is when he has to make a roll to resist the temptation to drink. Others might feel just the opposite. Having to roll against temptation tells that my character is an alcoholic, but my own narration is what shows it. It being a matter of preference, there's no resolving this.

With all those caveats, you might be surprised to hear that I think "showing rather than telling" in many forms of RPG narration is actually a very useful principle. The key is not to try to show everyting, but to try to show, rather than tell, the particular thing that's most dramatically important.

When describing a dragon that a group of gamist or sim-system-purist D&D players are about to fight, I'll narrate details about its huge size, razor-sharp claws, scaly armor, and so forth. How is this showing rather than telling? Because the most dramatically important information in this context is how many hit dice the damn thing has. I'm not telling them that, but I'm showing it by means of all the other color.

The exact reverse case is rarer, but I've done it. When describing a dragon to a color-oriented group, I said something like "he stretches up to his full height and grins at you with the kind of arrogant confidence that only 20-odd hit dice can engender." In this case (the nature of the encounter making imminent combat unlikely), the most dramatically important element was the dragon's size and impressiveness; describing in terms of hit points rather than explicit details of height, scaliness, etc. was showing rather than telling. (Of course, that's not my favorite technique, which is to describe using stories, as I've discussed on other threads.) Actual mechanics in play can also show rather than tell, if there's something to be shown that's more dramatially important than the mechanics themselves.

- Walt

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Actually, when I said ham handed I was thinking more about the author telling the reader they like this or that character or not. Maybe it is a trap of modernist thinking, but it strikes me as dangerously close to the author dictating what parts of the work the reader enjoys instead of just letting the reader read and enjoy what he enjoys.

For instance, a reader may find Tiny Tim annoying in his cheerfulness. Dickens says "Don't you just love Tiny Tim?" and then the reader thinks "Not really, but I'll play along."

Back to RPGs again.

This sort of thing I have delt with in play. I think it might be in old, old threads in Actual Play. I'll try to summarize. The GM had set up some mission for the PCs before play actually began. The details are kind of odd, but the broads strokes were we were all in the service of some wizard. One of the wizard's champions had been killed in the line of duty so we were entrusted to bring the body back to his home town for burial. But she started off with we were all in awe of the dead guy because he was such hot shit. This, I think, was a matter of Art in that I don't think it was communicated very artfully. There are probably numerous ways she could have told the group "you hold the dead guy in high regard" with saying that and only that so that we, the players, would have had something better to work with.

Being told how you (your character) feels can be tricky. Monkeying with what a character feels via GM mandate is akin to steping on toes. Not that the more subtile ways work much better. In this same game, the GM put an NPC in to be a romantic interest for a PC. The player didn't like that NPC so never followed up on it, but he did find two other NPCs very interesting.

This is a pretty big topic. Maybe we're getting to the point of daughter threads?