Okay, I just ran one of my more successful eps.  Despite being rusty as a GM.  It was a complicated drug, law enforcement storyline involving political families but with a sword and sorcery bent and a Noir (fast, don't roadblock clues) pacing.  I did good prep, the players stepped up... it really went over quite well.  Got some great Stakes set in there that drove a wonderful budding romance. Overall, I'm pleased.

But.

I don't think I did a great job of conjuring the setting.  It was Waterdeep, it was fantasy.  I kinda let the map (and our collective understanding of those fantasy city tropes) do all the setting for me.  Also, all the NPCs had pictures, so my "co-dependency" on the visual might be short circuiting my descriptive powers.

Its not like I don't have the vocabulary.  I lived in NYC for 6 years (as well as Cleveland, DC and Columbus, now Detroit).... I have plenty to extrapolate.  I'm a freakin' professional fantasy illustrator.  Coming up with scenes is WHAT I DO.  Yet... no description of warm, soft spring rain (perfectly appropriate for the timing), no description of houses, people, the hustle and bustle.  It was there in MY MIND... but I certainly didn't sell it.  It did not tumble off my tongue.

Now, when I'm a player, I like a very fine tuned balance of scene setting.  A GM goes on too long about corinthinian leather and how many buckles... my eyes glaze over.  Broad, quick strokes folks.  But doing a little can go a long way to immersing the players in a world that is not our own.

Okay, here are my questions to y'all.  Do any of you have advice on a mental checklist you might go through?  What is the balance between bogging down in detail... and wowing the players with a world that lives and breathes?  Does it really matter?  If Jonny thinks Valihphar, Lion of the Desert, is wearing purple and Peter thinks Valiphar is wearing white... does it matter?  Is there another way of approaching description of setting IN PREP besides showing pictures (which I will not abandon) or some reiteration of those horrible yesteryear "read this box of text" to your players?

Hiya,

I know exactly what you mean. Especially when playing Hero Wars (now HeroQuest), I was the primary source of information about the extensive setting, and felt a strong need to bring its details into play. After every session (and we're talking about something like 30 sessions), I always said to myself, "Dammit, it's not rich enough."

Except, over those 30 sessions, I also noted a couple of other things.

1. I would always fail to give myself credit for the details that I did introduce, and basically forget them.

2. The other people in the group remembered those details and (upon discussing older sessions) clearly enriched them in their own minds far past anything I could have established by saying it.

3. The other people in the group regularly borrowed the game books, bought their own, or dug out similar references from history and mythology.

In other words, over the long haul, I think we did a great job of invoking Glorantha (the setting). It just wasn't the traditional method of me mainlining the information from the books, then the players mainlining the same information from me.

How many sessions did you guys play? Again, after the fourth or fifth Hero Wars session (our first story, basically), I would have disconsolately said we hadn't "done" the setting. But I would have been wrong, now that I've seen how much the other people soaked up during those few first sessions.

Best,
Ron

Ditto to everything Ron said. 

Also...

The habit I've developed for myself is to try to blend my narratives of the situation and the setting together in just a breath or two.  Like explaining how the NPC the PCs are currently interacting with is having trouble keeping her hair out of her eyes because of the driving rain.  Or how the smell of fresh baked bread from across the road seems to keep distracting the hungry merchant they're negotiating with.

Also...

While it was never really much of a habit back in my D&D days, I've come to discover that the setting comes alive so much better when the rules of the table encourage all the players, and not just the GM, to put those little seeds of color into their narratives.  It took me a bit to get used to, ya know?  I mean, most game texts reinforce the idea that the GM has to be in charge of all that stuff or the game can fall apart.  But recently it's become pretty darned clear to me that if everyone takes responsibility for entertaining each other with their narration then the setting gets so much richer so much quicker. 

Also...

While all the players in my groups at home are used to and comfortable with that freedom of narration thing, I've become more and more inclined to GM games at conventions recently.  And all the players I meet there are dead-set on the ol'-style framework of the GM being in charge of describing everything.  Too keep with that style of play and to maintain the type of game I now enjoy where all the players entertain me as much as I entertain them, I stole a bit of a technique that's under-sold in Timothy Kleinert's The Mountain Witch*; 

Ask the players to describe things.  Do it often. 

For example; "You have in your possession an ornate box.  Describe it to us.  Where did you get it?  Why is it important to you?"  Or, more simply;  "You're about to go to a meeting with the Duke of Higsnobbery.  What color clothes are you expected to wear for that meeting?" 

I think it's a pretty hot technique that gets players into the habit of putting their own creations into the game.  Thus entertaining you in return.  Thus expanding and coloring the world for everyone.

Anyway, those are the techniques I'm using these days.  Good luck.

-Eric

* I have no idea if the technique is original to Tim or not.

How many sessions did you guys play? Again, after the fourth or fifth Hero Wars session (our first story, basically), I would have disconsolately said we hadn't "done" the setting. But I would have been wrong, now that I've seen how much the other people soaked up during those few first sessions.

The habit I've developed for myself is to try to blend my narratives of the situation and the setting together in just a breath or two.  Like explaining how the NPC the PCs are currently interacting with is having trouble keeping her hair out of her eyes because of the driving rain.  Or how the smell of fresh baked bread from across the road seems to keep distracting the hungry merchant they're negotiating with.

While all the players in my groups at home are used to and comfortable with that freedom of narration thing, I've become more and more inclined to GM games at conventions recently.  And all the players I meet there are dead-set on the ol'-style framework of the GM being in charge of describing everything.  Too keep with that style of play and to maintain the type of game I now enjoy where all the players entertain me as much as I entertain them,

One 'trick' I regularly employ is assigning one to three descriptive elements to each NPC, based on how important they are.   Throw-away NPCs get one, NPCs that will last the course of the campaign get (or rather, begin with) three.  Said elements tie directly into that character's role in the story -- the staid warrior has a signature sword; the beautiful noble Lady that the PCs serve and protect has flowing white hair and smells of lavender.  I write them down on the character sheet.

Then, whenever that NPC is in a scene, I hit one or more of their descriptive elements (and usually hit them HARD).  I usually end up with a pretty impressionistic narrative, but the characters know about that warrior's sword, and they remember the hair and lavender.  Usually it doesn't take long for the players to pipe those details back to me -- asking for a lock of hair as the lady's favor, for instance.

I don't find that you really need much more than a handful of these elements to really ground a character (or place -- I stat important places as characters) and 'sell' a sense of being there and player familiarity with the imagined content.

Joshua wrote:
One 'trick' I regularly employ is assigning one to three descriptive elements to each NPC, based on how important they are.   Throw-away NPCs get one, NPCs that will last the course of the campaign get (or rather, begin with) three.  Said elements tie directly into that character's role in the story -- the staid warrior has a signature sword; the beautiful noble Lady that the PCs serve and protect has flowing white hair and smells of lavender.  I write them down on the character sheet.

Then, whenever that NPC is in a scene, I hit one or more of their descriptive elements (and usually hit them HARD).  I usually end up with a pretty impressionistic narrative, but the characters know about that warrior's sword, and they remember the hair and lavender.  Usually it doesn't take long for the players to pipe those details back to me -- asking for a lock of hair as the lady's favor, for instance.

I don't find that you really need much more than a handful of these elements to really ground a character (or place -- I stat important places as characters) and 'sell' a sense of being there and player familiarity with the imagined content.

Storn wrote:
Does it really matter?  If Jonny thinks Valihphar, Lion of the Desert, is wearing purple and Peter thinks Valiphar is wearing white... does it matter?

octaNe's "Rule of Details" states that characters may be defined by no more than 3 details. This is because I was always sick of players spending 5 minutes describing the minutae of height/weightskin/eye/hair color, etc. (which was never important and nobody remembered anyway).

Jared wrote:
octaNe's "Rule of Details" states that characters may be defined by no more than 3 details. This is because I was always sick of players spending 5 minutes describing the minutae of height/weightskin/eye/hair color, etc. (which was never important and nobody remembered anyway).

Here is how I try to keep descriptions streamlined but effective.

Focus on the most obviously different or stand-out quality. What is the major change from where the characters were before and where they are now? Try to utilize the various senses at different times - the smell of the open sewer as the characters move from the noble district to the more low rent part of town, the growing noise as they approach the market, the bitter cold hitting them in the face after stepping out from a warm inn, and so on. Applying these broad strokes allows the players to immediately imagine their own specific details.
Once the most notable thing is established, you can tie other bits. For example, if an NPC is approaching, the first thing noticed might be the huge axe he is carrying. Then you can comment on how this suits the rough furs and leathers he is wearing, or how it contrasts his fine clothing. If the clothing is unremarkable, don't remark on it.:) Add a description of this character's disposition (the players want to know if he looks pissed off and heading straight at them), and you have your 3 key details. Apply the same principle to the setting.

Consider what is important to the players/characters. Try to view the scene from the perspective of a single character. For example the rogue or shady type of character might first notice the broad, open, and well light quality of the street, along with the fact that a city guard never appears to be out of sight. He might not be planning anything unlawful at this moment, but it is his nature to be aware of such things, while a warrior might observe that the high quality store fronts on the same street are unlike to hold shops or pubs that meet his need.
Try to also keep in mind what is important to the players at any particular moment. Are they searching for someone? Then comment on how the cold drizzle has cleared out the streets and few folks out and about are huddle in the cloaks and moving at a brisk pace. This right away establishes that spotting someone that might normally be hanging out on this street will be diffult since people are indoors or by necessity keeping their faces covered.

So basically start with the most noticeable thing and the mood about the place, vary which sense is being used to notice this (don't always start with visual clues for example) and from which character's perspective, and zone in on what is important to players at the moment.

Hope that was useful.

Cheers,

Al

I strongly endorse prompting players to describe their own clothing.  Partly this assist in their engagement with setting, remembering that you can't just go to the king after you come all ichor-stained out of the sewers or whatever, and partly its to prompt their own visual imagination, of themselves in the setting.  I think that helps keep the imaginary setting in the minds eye.

I also use "helicopter shots".  There is no particular reason you have to limit your description to the places the characters are physically present, thats real-time thinking.  Its entirely valid to show off bits of the setting, Just Becuase - and perhaps as a form of foreshadowing.  So the convention is that a session would usually start with a helicopter shot, as you see in the movies... a long single pan from the air, from which vantage point we could indeed see the bridge you wanted to describe.  You can talk to the players directly rather than using their characters eyes as proxies; you could assume that the characters have seen the bridge at some point in the past, or its the kind of place that people have to pass in the course of normal business.  Whatever, the point is that you are portraying the setting, and do not need to restrict yourself to the characters direct experience for anything that might be common knowledge or to have been encountered in time outside of actual play, that is, off screen time.

I strongly endorse prompting players to describe their own clothing

I worry that with a single picture the players have a costume rather than a wardrobe.  This bugs me; but if you are able to draw for each event, I guess that would not be a problem.  But that was why its something to be done regularly, by the player, IMO.

But as for the helicopter shot, there is no need to describe absolutely everything - hit a significant landmark this time, hit a different one next time.  In this specific instance, I would have done a "camera movement" from outside, to the walls, over the roofs, describing smoke from fires and chimneys etc, glanced down at the bridge, and zoomed in to wherever the players are... play then begins.  I intend it as an opening remark rather like "Are you sitting comfortably children?  Then I'll begin..." (except without the patronising tone of course).

I worry that with a single picture the players have a costume rather than a wardrobe.  This bugs me; but if you are able to draw for each event, I guess that would not be a problem.  But that was why its something to be done regularly, by the player, IMO.

No pictures in the Forge posts, please. Storn, send me a private message including the URL for the picture, and permission to edit your post, and all will be well. Otherwise the post has to go to the Inactive File, which would suck, and I don't want to have to do it.

Best,
Ron

oops, sorry... can you edit it out?  Or can we provide a link to the pic?  I'll pm you the link.

I would do it myself, but I can't seem to edit my old posts.

Although, I think if you wanted to close this thread... that would be fine.  I think it is probably on the way of being played out.  I've gotten a lot out of it.

Doesnt' bug me.  Whatever picture it is, it tends to be of the character's "working clothes".  We all have imaginations that can switch the spandex of the superhero set to
leather jacket and jeans if the scene calls for it... or a suit and tie.  In fantasy, only the noble classes have several changes of clothes to begin with.

All fixed!

Don't apologize when moderated (newcomers take note of this, please).

I agree that this thread has reached a good stopping point, so let's close it. Great discussion, great example of actual play.

Best,
Ron