But my Character doesn't know that...

[Ulukaï]

Hello playgrounders,

I have a question concerning descriptions, immersion, player/character knowledge and whatever. I'd just like to have some opinions about the following:

Situation:
- The Players enter a room and the DM descripes what they see. Eventually:
- 'Ok, on the table ther's standing a microscope. It's a rather new invention, does any of your characters could have seen something like that or even know it?'
- The collective answer: 'No, that's unlikely.'
- Ok, moving on...

After the session:
The players collectively are unsatisfied with the DMs description of said microscope. Their characters don't know such apparati and so the DM should have just described what they see, without using the word microscope.

What do you think? Please state your opinions, I#m willing to be enlightend. Thank you very much!

[Sinewmire]

Hello playgrounders,

The players collectively are unsatisfied with the DMs description of said microscope. Their characters don't know such apparati and so the DM should have just described what they see, without using the word microscope.

What do you think? Please state your opinions, I#m willing to be enlightend. Thank you very much!

It could have been more fun to describe the microscope from first principles, but it's the characters who won't recognise it, not the players.

If the characters aren't familiar with it or how it works, why describe it at all?

"There's some sort of alchemy tool on the table, it looks worryingly complicated."

[MeimuHakurei]

Yeah, it was probably a mistake of the DM to name a device the players might not recognize. Then again, it is basically a spyglass pointing down to a glass surface, so the characters might have the idea you're supposed to look into it. The more educated party members could possibly even discern what a spyglass oriented this way could accomplish.

It could also be a mistake that the DM possibly attached a plot hook to the microscope, which the players didn't recognize. You shouldn't make the plot hinge on the players passing a specific skill check.

[Knaight]

It could have been more fun to describe the microscope from first principles, but it's the characters who won't recognise it, not the players.

If the characters aren't familiar with it or how it works, why describe it at all?

Sometimes it's a fun way to get perspective across - how things are perceived by a subjective observer says a lot about that observer, and while the subjective observer in this case doesn't map to any individual character there's still a sort of implicit setting everyperson that can be characterized, and in so doing the setting itself is explored.

[Ulukaï]

First things first: DM was me, obviously , and in fact it was my first time DMing ever (no excuse). The Feedback gave some good stuff, some bad stuff, mostly I understood it, but this one critique really irritated me. But I'm willing to learn and thanks for the replies so far, would like to hear more!

What are these "First principles"? I am new to this and not native english.

Sometimes it's a fun way to get perspective across - how things are perceived by a subjective observer says a lot about that observer, and while the subjective observer in this case doesn't map to any individual character there's still a sort of implicit setting everyperson that can be characterized, and in so doing the setting itself is explored.

Sorry, I have no idea, what you are talking about...

Also, there was no plotpoint attached, just a thingy to perhaps do some other thingy with. There was no rolling involved. I just asked the players, if their characters' background let them know it.

My point is, why describe it wordily (probably insufficently), when I just can use one word, everybody knows what's on the table and can make with it what they want or move on. Is it this strange creature calle immersion?

[Florian]

What do you think? Please state your opinions, I#m willing to be enlightend. Thank you very much!

Much work for very little gain, if you ask me. The game uses language as a medium so you should try to be as precise as possible to get the information across to your players. If it´s a microscope, call it a microscope. If there's something special to it, add the information, like "... made of brass and using crystals as lenses". That might ruin the immersion a bit, yes, but the main point is still getting information across.

Edit: What Knaight means is that sometimes, describing a thing but not directly naming it can be fun in itself, because that turns finding out what the thing is into a kind of riddle. Think about describing a "steam-powered panzer" in a fantasy setting instead of directly calling it a "panzer". But that only makes sense if you want your players to actually play around with the thing instead of it just being pure backdrop.

[Mordaedil]

I'd just apologize and say I described it that way for their benefit as I don't know quite how I'd describe a microscope to someone who is unfamiliar with it. I mean, how would you describe it, a telescope aimed at a small tray? Even that might just give it away so a player might accidentally say "oh, is that a microscope?", not considering their character wouldn't recognize it.

In short, I think you handled it correctly.

[Knaight]

Sorry, I have no idea, what you are talking about...

I'll reexplain then, with more concrete examples. Take first person literature - everything that gets described is what the character perceives and does. Looking at what is perceived in particular, there are different ways to write the same scene depending on which character is looking at it. Raskolnikov is a man haunted by guilt and seeing shadows around every corner, so descriptions of his perception routinely include aspects of his paranoia. Humbert Humbert is a disgusting pedophile screwed up in the head, so his first person perspective of Lolita (the character) is colored by that in a way that makes the typical reader nauseated*.

Another step out and slightly more abstracted are the Fabled Lands gamebooks. They're sort of a choose-your-own-adventure but with character stats, relayed in second person and with a flexible main character that nonetheless has some implicit history. There's a scene you can chance across where your character finds a crashed spaceship with an astronaut inside it (something akin to the lunar lander, not a space dreadnaught) floating in the ocean, parachute out.

The character is in a fantasy setting. They have no idea what any of this stuff is, and so the description from their perspective says none of that. It's all about strange shiny boats, and a probably demonic metal being with one big dark eye dead in the craft, with a strange sail lying limp in the water. This scene works, it sticks with you, and the way that scene is described tells you about the character. Had another character come across that same scene they might describe it differently, with another astronaut having a particularly different perspective.

Take one step further out. The second person description is likely still there ("you see"), but the characters are different. The perceptions involved are those of the PCs as a whole, and while you can tailor things to them specifically (a bunch of seasoned adventurers are likely to perceive things differently than the typical civilian who's never been more than twenty miles from home) the description can also be tailored less to any individual character and more to the setting. Things are described as a hypothetical average setting-person would see them, and the choices made in that description tell the players about the setting.

*There's also non-depressing examples, but sometimes you just have to turn to Russian literature.

[Ulukaï]

I'll reexplain then, with more concrete examples. Take first person literature - everything that gets described is what the character perceives and does. Looking at what is perceived in particular, there are different ways to write the same scene depending on which character is looking at it. [...]

Ok, thanks for explaining and sorry for being a little bit flippant at first. That's how I understood it, but I still quite don't get, how this matters here. For me, I have to draw the line between player and character somewhere. Why should I make up that elaborate description for THEIR characters, when I just can name it to the PLAYERS and let them make that transfer and decide for their characters how they perceive it. I thought we are talking about roleplaying, not about storytelling (be it out of first or third perspective).

[Darth Ultron]

My point is, why describe it wordily (probably insufficently), when I just can use one word, everybody knows what's on the table and can make with it what they want or move on. Is it this strange creature calle immersion?

In A general sense, to just say what something is just using one word is dull and boring and very much breaks the immersion of the game. At least for people that want to role play their character. It's simply no fun to be told X is X, lets move on.

You don't want to take a half hour describing the ''curved object with soup in it'' on the table(aka a bowl), but anything that is not common you do want to describe it.

And for like a microscope, it's not like you need to do a 500,000 word detailed description, ''a metal spyglass attached to a stand looking down at the table'' is more then enough. You can even go the route of ''a metal device with some glass'' or even ''odd deceives''.


Your players might also not like the mid game question of ''does your character know this?", as again it breaks the immersion. A lot of players would much rather role play out not knowing something, then just saying ''my character does not know that''.

[Knaight]

Ok, thanks for explaining and sorry for being a little bit flippant at first. That's how I understood it, but I still quite don't get, how this matters here. For me, I have to draw the line between player and character somewhere. Why should I make up that elaborate description for THEIR characters, when I just can name it to the PLAYERS and let them make that transfer and decide for their characters how they perceive it. I thought we are talking about roleplaying, not about storytelling (be it out of first or third perspective).

Think of it this way - you're not providing characterization for THEIR characters. You're providing characterization for YOUR setting. As for roleplaying vs. storytelling, that whole model is a distraction right now. There's a lot of overlap that comes from both using description and both benefiting from good description in general, and more than that setting knowledge helps role play a character in a setting.

Take this microscope example. There's a table with a microscope on it - that much is setting reality. There are other parts of setting reality here though. There's a table with a strange object wrought from uncharacteristically advanced technology on it. That has meaning in the setting, that affects character decisions.

Meanwhile, in another setting you could have a parallel. There's a table with a microscope on it - that much is still setting reality. There's also a table with an antique on it, a neat little knick knack of no practical value that might be appreciated with antiquarian. That too has meaning in the setting, that too affects character decisions.

These character decisions are likely to vary between those two settings. This raises obvious questions of which of those two settings you're in. Those are fairly extreme, and distinguishing between them is probably going to be pretty obvious by what's going on with the rest of the setting, but there's a lot of subtle shades in between. More than that, these subtle differences are all over settings for basically anything within them, and how you describe things can convey that information in ways that just describing them as you would for the "setting" of real life doesn't.

Plus, it can be a fun little easter egg in and of itself.

You don't want to take a half hour describing the ''curved object with soup in it'' on the table(aka a bowl), but anything that is not common you do want to describe it.

The decisions for which objects merit this treatment can also say a lot about a setting. Just saying "a bowl" suggests that bowls are common in the setting. If, for some reason they aren't (the characters have spent their whole lives in zero gravity or something), then you actually might want to use a more elaborate description.

This also applies to word choice. "Curved object with soup in it" and "Concave ceramic sheet containing nutrient slurry" both describe the same object (assuming a ceramic bowl, a different term would be used for wood), but they say very different things about the setting other than the one point of overlap of how bowls are weird in setting.

[Ulukaï]

Ok, as I said, I am just starting and at this point I don't think I have the capacities to go into such deliberations . I will keep it in mind and will try to watch these things further.

At least two people here could deem my handling as the correct approach and that is enough for me. I just wanted to know if there are people who can see it my way or if I am the only one not seeing the impact of my choice of words. I think it is a matter of expectations and playing style (obviously), so, to each his own, I guess. For me, immersion is not the holy grail and surely does not come from those descriptions.

I will keep lookout for further posts here, but consider my question as sufficiantly answered . Thanks to all!

[Knaight]

Ok, as I said, I am just starting and at this point I don't think I have the capacities to go into such deliberations . I will keep it in mind and will try to watch these things further.

Keep in mind that there's a yawning chasm between the theoretical and the practical here - I'm explaining the virtues of a particular technique, which involves delving in to theory a bit. When actually GMing it's a subconscious process at most, where there's not really a great deal of thought going into how exactly stuff gets worded. Instead, existing practice and just a general familiarity with language and writing tends to translate into a style that gets gradually refined. Theory and analysis has its place, but it's usually not during a game session.

[Florian]

Keep in mind that there's a yawning chasm between the theoretical and the practical here - I'm explaining the virtues of a particular technique, which involves delving in to theory a bit. When actually GMing it's a subconscious process at most, where there's not really a great deal of thought going into how exactly stuff gets worded. Instead, existing practice and just a general familiarity with language and writing tends to translate into a style that gets gradually refined. Theory and analysis has its place, but it's usually not during a game session.

Going by your previous example, you've got to add that the technique is about juxtapositioning the "mundane" with the "fantastic" and highlight the "unknown" even more by doing so.

[Geddy2112]

Our group tends to handle this kind of stuff as follows.

"You see a strange looking box, one side is glass. connected to the box are a ton of buttons on a board. It seems like some kind of magical machine. Based on the amount of dust and age of the rest of the things you have seen in this building, you can guess it has not been used in quite some time." If somebody in the group has their eyes glaze over and miss it, the DM will then say to the players "it is a computer".

For the sake of playing the game, I want to know it is a computer. If my character grabs the thing and puts it in their bag of holding, I don't want to write a three sentence description of it, I just want to put "computer" on my character sheet. It also helps quick reference should I try to sell it, show it to an NPC, use it. I can tell the dm "my character shows the wizard the computer I got in said dungeon". That said, I really like having the description for immersion, and to use as well. I would rather say "Sakura reaches into her bag and pulls out that ancient magic box with buttons she got on the island of Harvest Moon. She shows it to the Syndril mage, and says 'I think it it some kind of magic from the first or second age. Do you know anything about it?" But again, I can quickly clarify should the DM forget I had it, or say, my bag is full of other weird oddities my character does not know and just say "the computer I grabbed last session".

I like both-If it is a microscope, I want to know as a player because it makes the game easier to play. For immersion and all, I like things having a description. Extra so in scifi or fantasy settings where technology we know can have magical or futuristic abilities. It is a microscope, but it has magical lenses that detect X, or something like that.

[Quertus]

There are several valid approaches to this problem.

The most efficient, obviously, is to simply call it a microscope.

The second most efficient is to call it a microscope, while explicitly making sure that the players know whether or not their characters have the knowledge to understand it, and outsourcing that translation of perception to the players. This is the technique you used, and the feedback you received clearly indicates that it does not match your players' preferences.

Or you can attempt to laboriously describe its size, shape, color, materials, construction, etc. This will often lead to, "so, a microscope?", but is important if, say, the module had the party fighting a Rakshasa that can only be harmed by brass, and the microscope is one of two brass items in the game.

Or, you can just describe it as some strange alchemical device. However, this requires you to know that none of the characters have the appropriate skills to recognize it, and can lead to the very inefficient (but, for some players, such as myself, very fun) game of 20 questions with the GM.

EDIT: personally, I'm fine with any of these techniques, so long as they're done well. I hate when the GM fails to do their homework to know that one of the characters actually would recognize the device in the third option, and we have to retcon several sessions of "things obviously would have gone differently", or when the players fail to roleplay their ignorance under the first two options, or when the GM slows the game to a crawl by using the third or fourth option on everything, no matter how familiar it should be. So, they ask can work well, but all have horrible fail states.

I would suggest going over this list with your players, and getting their feedback on their preferred style, and why it is their preference.

[Ulukaï]

Ok, here I am, getting sucked back in...

First: Is everybody here really that theoretical? Is nobody here just playing the game? Am I taht short-sighted?

Second: Geddy2112s answer is exactly that kind of double standard I really cannot grasp. So the DM has to go and make up some really "immersive" descriptions, so he does not upset his players. But the player than just can say and write down: "It's a computer!" , Isn't that self-imposed immersion-breaking right there?

I have the feeling my language barrier is too great here or I am just plain stupid.

EDIT: Ok, thanks Quertus, finally some stuff I can follow. As I've written, it was plain, that the players had other expectations than me and obviously should go ahead and look for a ne DM ;) .

[HidesHisEyes]

Hello playgrounders,

I have a question concerning descriptions, immersion, player/character knowledge and whatever. I'd just like to have some opinions about the following:

Situation:
- The Players enter a room and the DM descripes what they see. Eventually:
- 'Ok, on the table ther's standing a microscope. It's a rather new invention, does any of your characters could have seen something like that or even know it?'
- The collective answer: 'No, that's unlikely.'
- Ok, moving on...

After the session:
The players collectively are unsatisfied with the DMs description of said microscope. Their characters don't know such apparati and so the DM should have just described what they see, without using the word microscope.

What do you think? Please state your opinions, I#m willing to be enlightend. Thank you very much!

I would describe the microscope without saying the word “microscope”. The players would understand what it was and would interact with it as if it’s a microscope. Sure their characters have never seen one, but we can assume they’re smart enough to figure out you’re supposed to look through it. This kind of thing happens all the time in RPGs, and my advice is not to stress about player knowledge vs character knowledge too much. Many would disagree with me, but in my experience trying to keep character and player knowledge separate breaks the immersion more than just not worrying about it.

And if it gets ridiculous trying to describe something without saying what it is, just say “out of character, it’s basically a microscope”. Again, that breaks the immersion a little, but not as much as a long drawn out attempt to describe an everyday object in an unfamiliar way.

[Slipperychicken]

- 'Ok, on the table ther's standing a microscope. It's a rather new invention, does any of your characters could have seen something like that or even know it?'
- The collective answer: 'No, that's unlikely.'

If there's any uncertainty at all, I'd rather just employ the game's version of knowledge or lore abilities here to decide whether the characters know. One of them may well have overheard a scholar loudly gushing about it the line at a butcher shop, or had a friend who described it to them. People can know some surprising things outside their areas of expertise.


I don't see the point in making my GM go through contortions to conceal the object's nature when he can instead rely on us to roleplay characters who don't know it. He can just say "Your real-world selves would recognize this as a primitive microscope. Your characters however are ignorant of the idea and see just another confusing arrangement of cylinders, platforms, and glass pieces". That efficiently communicates what our characters see and understand, and we can move on with the session.

[Geddy2112]

Second: Geddy2112s answer is exactly that kind of double standard I really cannot grasp. So the DM has to go and make up some really "immersive" descriptions, so he does not upset his players. But the player than just can say and write down: "It's a computer!" , Isn't that self-imposed immersion-breaking right there?

It is not done to appease the players-I doubt anyone in my group would bat an eye if the DM just said "you see a computer". It is cool when the DM describes stuff, even if it is mundane stuff our characters know. However, I don't want to have ten pages of descriptions on my character sheet under loot. Then trying to remember which one is which from six sessions ago(months in the real world) then how the heck would I remember? It helps for brevity in recap, and brevity is the soul of wit. I don't care how good the description of something was if I have no idea what it is or how it related to the story.
There is the game, and then there is the fact that six people are sitting around a table playing together(the metagame). For the game to function, you have to realize you are six people sitting around a table playing a game. For my group, if that breaks immersion, so be it. We want a smoother game, even if that means sacrificing immersion.
Second Slipperychicken and Hideshiseyes that by going through the hoops like that, you do more damage and grind the game to a halt vs just saying "as players you would know this is a microscope."

If that is not your cup of tea and would ruin the game for you, then that's totally fine. You are just as right or wrong to sit down at a table and ban this kind of thing, in a world where you have tech that resembles/is real world tech, but in a setting where it is novel or truly unknown.

As I've written, it was plain, that the players had other expectations than me and obviously should go ahead and look for a ne DM ;)

You said it best. If the group does something a certain way that you can't stand, to the point it ruins the game, then you should not be in that group. What works for my group does not have to work for every other group, and vice versa.

[LibraryOgre]

I am reminded of a comic...

[Knaight]

First: Is everybody here really that theoretical? Is nobody here just playing the game? Am I taht short-sighted?

You're on an RPG forum for discussing RPGs. This should tell you two things - that the people here tends towards theoretical discussion, and that the people here are probably not particularly representative of the standard group.

Second: Geddy2112s answer is exactly that kind of double standard I really cannot grasp. So the DM has to go and make up some really "immersive" descriptions, so he does not upset his players. But the player than just can say and write down: "It's a computer!" , Isn't that self-imposed immersion-breaking right there?

That's not why the GM is making these descriptions. We're making these descriptions because we like doing so, because we care about the craft to at least some extent.

[Quertus]

First: Is everybody here really that theoretical?

Yes. Yes we are.

EDIT: Ok, thanks Quertus, finally some stuff I can follow. As I've written, it was plain, that the players had other expectations than me and obviously should go ahead and look for a ne DM ;) .

I wrote something understandable? Dock me 50 XP for bad role-playing.

I'm glad what I wrote was helpful to you, regardless on my XP penalty.

[Tanarii]

My point is, why describe it wordily (probably insufficently), when I just can use one word, everybody knows what's on the table and can make with it what they want or move on. Is it this strange creature calle immersion?

Because you don't have to do it wordily. In fact, Sinewmire gave a great way to do it in summary, since they're not going to understand it anyway. If they asked for more details, you could then either do the "wordily" in-character descriptive method, or the out-of-character "it's a microscope". Depending on how much your players care about puzzles, immersion, in/out of character separation, how much time you want them to spend playing around with the stuff, etc etc.

That's not to say I think you did anything wrong. I'm just saying that if your goal is to reduce PC and player knowledge separation, at least on the fly, then there are still ways to do that without being wordy all the time.

It could have been more fun to describe the microscope from first principles, but it's the characters who won't recognise it, not the players.

If the characters aren't familiar with it or how it works, why describe it at all?

"There's some sort of alchemy tool on the table, it looks worryingly complicated."

[Koo Rehtorb]

This is 100% a taste thing. Some people are annoyed by doing the whole "describe a thing without naming it" dance, other people want exactly that. There's no right or wrong way to go about it.

Do what your players like, and they've made it pretty clear what they like.

[Mr Beer]

I don't particularly care, there are times when I have said the equivalent of 'it's a microscope, not that you know what that is of course' and times I've gone the 'modified spyglass' route and times I've said the equivalent of 'looks like a natural philosopher's instrument of some kind, fiendish complex don't you know'.

EDIT

Generally I would tend to describe the object and when a player says 'oh a microscope' reply 'yes but you don't know that'.

[Quertus]

This is 100% a taste thing. Some people are annoyed by doing the whole "describe a thing without naming it" dance, other people want exactly that. There's no right or wrong way to go about it.

Do what your players like, and they've made it pretty clear what they like.

And some, like me, don't care which you do, so long as it's done right.

But, yeah, if it's an issue, spell it out. And have the full pros and cons discussion with the group.

[vasilidor]

In such situations, I just use pictures.

[Ravens_cry]

I'd have described it, myself. As both a player and a reader, I find it definitely adds an immersion factor when something that, while familiar to the reader/player, is described in detail. It helps put you in the mindset of the characters. If a character has reason to recognize it, then you can use the shortcut of the proper term.
For example, let's say I described a box of painted metal that hums and whirs, with a glowing rune or two you do not recognize. There is various protrusions and depressions on it. It is connected to another metal box with a glass front by a heavy rope or cable sheathed in some smooth, warm feeling material. Thinner sheathed ropes connect a trey of a great number of protrusions with further runes, and a palm sized box with a red light shining from the bottom from a small hole.
What have I described?

Spoiler

Show

A PC with a CRT monitor, a keyboard, and an optical mouse/

Even if you the player work out what is, it, at least for me, helps put you in the mindset of it being a mystery to investigate.

[Deophaun]

Rule of thumb: if it occurs to you to ask if anyone has a skill that would tell them that a widget is, indeed, a widget, then you should probably describe the widget instead of referring to it directly as a widget. Then you ask for a skill or skills you think would be appropriate, like craft(widget) or profession(widgeteer) or knowledge(widgets), and prompt players by saying "or something like that" to get them to possibly suggest things you missed.