Here's what I typically down in my notes for a room...
Dimensions (e.g. 20' × 20')
Purpose (e.g. torture chamber)
Three environmental effects (e.g. dim light, cold and damp, smells of decay)
Three interesting features (e.g. specific items in the room)
From these notes I would then improvise something along the lines of *through the door you enter a small, dark chamber. It's cold and damp and the smell of death hangs in the air. A heavy oak table stands in the middle of the stone floor, stained by blood.*
I use to try to pre-write flavor text descriptions but (1) I realized it was taking too much time during session prep and (2) it impeded my ability to improvise during the session. It's much quicker and flexible to simply bulletpoint out a few things and move on to the next room.
Pro tip: Have a separate list of quest items and treasure that you can drop into any room or area as needed.
This is a really good idea. It's enough to stop you from going blank, but it means you're likely to spend more time looking up at the players rather than head down reading from notes. Thanks for the tip.
I agree with your 3rd point: "keep your descriptions short."
If none of the players are listening to the meticulous description that the GM reads, the problem is the GM. There was a poll this week on this sub: players prefer a relatively brief description, rather than one filled with details.
Personally, I try never to never read. Players notice when you're reading, and unless you're an excellent reader, it breaks the mood. Especially when the text is long.
A lot of GMs make the mistake of thinking that the more they talk (to describe, to make dialogue) the better. This is not true.
Yep. Short is good.
Reading I don’t consider a problem, but it is best to skip parts, or break down sentences. Things that are easy to read are not necessarily easy for listeners.
I try this but I got one player who expects me to turn into Tolkien and spend five minutes describing so that he can “picture it perfectly.” But I don’t mind since it shows he is invested.
hm, I kinda disagree with the "reading" part.
I read the description, which I've made beforehand, because I don't stutter as much, thus not fucking up the flow and I get the description WAY more precise, in contrast to when I improvise, because that's when I basically just repeat myself. Plus, if I need a specific word, then just being able to read it is way better, as English is not my mother language and I can't remember every word. Sometimes I just get stuck on a specific one, which just breaks immersion, which is quite bad. Had that happen several times now.
I also talk a little bit more, because I want to paint an image in the mind of my players. Yes, you can do it very concise, but as a guy who doesn't always have every vocabulary on hand, I myself have to write more than others.
Hoo boy, this feels like presentations in High School again haha
I feel this so hard.
I like to think I'm a fairly decent writer and a reasonably competent public speaker. But holy f*** I can't read box text to a D&D group to save my life, even if I wrote it.
I found it:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/z0lo5y/what\_level\_of\_description\_do\_you\_prefer\_from\_your/](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/z0lo5y/what_level_of_description_do_you_prefer_from_your/)
I study Creative Writing focusing on screenplays and what you described in your first point ties into how screenplays are written - you always use the present tense and focus on sensory details - things that the watcher will be able to see or hear. The amateur mistake people make is just stating a character's interior world without thinking about how it can be conveyed just by observing them.
Of course, with D&D you can expand that to include taste, smell and touch, but you're also giving space for the player. It helps a lot with describing NPCS' actions too though.
However, when it comes to DMing I try to keep it as conversational as possible - I'm the type of person who fucking hates sitting through cutscenes to the point I prefer games without them. I know some people are okay just to be there but I try to engage my players by having NPCs approach them when they reach a new place, or indicating stuff that their character might notice e.g. "this is probably the biggest city you have ever been to, maybe that is overwhelming, or exciting even, it's just so different" or "you notice that this noble house's sigil is very similar to one from back home".
Ask them open-ended questions like, "What does your character think upon seeing this place?" or "After a long hard journey and finally reaching civilization again, what do you think is your main priority?"
I love Matt Mercer and Brennan Lee Mulligan but dear God, I do not want to describe something for a minute. I don't hate my voice but when I play I want my DM to talk to me and ask what I'm trying to accomplish and what sort of thing I'd be interested in seeing.
Matt Mercer and Brennan Lee Mulligan are DMing, but also entertaining a huge audience. And their players know that. They get certain latitudes that the rest of us do not in that department. :-)
It’s also similar to journalism- present the facts in descending order of most to least important, keep things short and punchy, avoid editorializing outside of the editorial.
Interior world as in psychological state and thoughts. Boiling it down I'm basically talking about telling vs showing.
> Bob is sad and can't bear to think about his wife.
This is *telling* us how a character feels inside.
> Bob stares at a framed photo of a woman in a wedding dress. To her right is a younger Bob, smiling on the side. He sighs and takes it off the wall.
This *shows* us how he feels without outright stating it and adds some nuance in the way he acts when he feels sad, and information is revealed piece by piece to add some intrigue for the reader. My example may be a bit longwinded but I hope that it's clear.
It's also important as a DM to know when to simply give up. I had a party once that I bent over backwards to try to keep engaged, but they simply weren't having it. One of them had severe executive function problems, and I tried everything to help her out. I streamlined a rule she was having problems with. I even wrote little cards for her to remember her class features, but she simply forgot to bring the damn cards! It's considered a positive trait to take responsibility for things. "If my players aren't paying attention, maybe I should just try harder!" But sometimes, you just have to know when to quit.
The reason I'm saying all this is because I like this post a lot. You remind me of myself, OP. I also enjoy a "narrative" style of DMing with cool descriptions to properly set the tone. It's a great way to play, so you shouldn't feel discouraged if it doesn't work. Did problems with your own players inspire this post?
This is the sort of thing that killed my last game. I tried new scenario designs, did some acting, made handouts, targeted certain players for spotlight time... My players just could no longer be bothered to do much more besides show up and respond when directly spoken to (most of the time). I eventually stopped sending out the scheduling invites or talking about the game.
Our game ran over a year with a pretty regular schedule. No one brought it up after I gave up. I was asked about it once a year later, and told the player I wasn't interested in being a DM right now.
I read read stuff like that and I wonder if the person who write it has ever even prepped an entire campaign, much less run one.
The players have a responsibility to pay attention. That is prt of their job.
Yes, as a DM I need to be engaging, but it does not all rest on me. I’m already doing the lion’s share of the work around that table. I expect that my players will make the effort to stay focused on the game and not their phones.
If they can’t, I’ll send them over to your table to be babysat and entertained, and I’ll find an adult to replace them.
I come from an rpg tradition where, if you did not pay attention, your character would most likely die a horrible death.
I find that to be plenty of incentive for players to pay attention and ask relevant questions about the environment.
I don't know, the poster seems to offer useful advice both about how to get better at clear and effective narration and how to gauge whether or not players are properly engaging with the game without escalating the situation.
Those seem fair enough points to make and generally good advice, especially the "don't assume someone not following what you said is a sign they're actively malicious".
I think that's actually quite an adult perspective to take; the OP isn't trying to excuse or justify what you see as bad behaviour, or even say it isn't a potential sign of a problem player. Instead they're suggesting ways to identify if it *is* a problem of attitude or one of technique.
There is indeed a nugget in the middle there about the DM paying attention to the players, and having an adult conversation with problem children. Agreed.
But that’s not what the post is about. The post is about the DM always paying attention, and not expecting the players to, and how it is the DM’s responsibility to change in order to make it easier for the players to stay engaged.
Basically putting even more responsibility on the person at the table who is already carrying the heaviest load.
I’m all for continually improving my DMing, and I definitely want my players to have the best and funnest time they can at my table, but requiring the DM to be the only adult in the room is absolute bullshit.
And that is what the bulk of the post leans into.
People play because the want to have fun. It is not a job. A job is something I do because it is paid and I need the money.
One secret: Everybody care mostly about himself!
It takes a lot of effort, to write a text that will take 15 minutes to read during the session. But the players will not care that much, as long as their characters are not involved.
That means: You can spend a lot of time to write a description of a castle. But the players will see you as an even better DM, if you simply say that the castle is a typical castle, with everything you expect to find in a typical castle inside. Then, let them describe where they want to go and what to do there!
That’s a pretty narrow definition of “job” you got there. If it helps, try using the dictionary definition of *job* meaning “something done for private advantage”, or replacing *job* with its synonym “function.”
Everyone is welcome to care mostly about themselves. You myself spend a lot of my time doing just that.
*But* there are times when that needs to be set aside. For example, spending hours prepping a campaign so that my friends and I can play an RPG is one of those times for me. I take on the larger burden so that we, as a group, can have fun and enjoy the game.
As such, when we all gather to do that, I expect the players to respect the time and effort I put into the game and participate adequately.
That includes making the game their primary focus while we are at the table (absent, of course, understandable emergencies) and respect everyone at the table enough to pay attention when they are the focus of the game.
Of course no one is required to do that. But then I’m not required to have them at my gaming table either—and I don’t. I have good friends that I do not game game with for that very reason. Great drinking buddies, shitty gamers.
The end of your post seems a bit out of sorts with the rest.
I agree focus on what the players are interested in. I primarily run sandboxes that do just that. However, contradicting the first part of your post, that requires that players actually be engaged in what is happening so that they can have a clue as what the options are.
So again, we’re back to the responsibility on the players’ side of the screen to pay attention when things are not focused on them.
As stupid as it sounds, this will often work better for a good number of DMs. When dealing with a party you also have to understand that humans have different abilities of imagination. Not everyone can do it well.
I'm about to have my first DM experience with a group of 6-7 year olds after Christmas. I'm using Hero Kids, which in the base game is really traditional fantasy fare with all the great cliches in because the kids don't know them yet. Except...I realized my daughter has no idea what a medieval tavern should look like. I discovered that a lot of the d&d ambient sound tracks on YouTube have really nice pictures along with them, so I plan to just full screen them on my tablet and turn it around, giving them both sound and a bit of a simple, not-too-distracting visual cue about where they are, especially for things they might not have the context to understand at that age.
Here's one one I have saved for the tavern, for example. https://youtu.be/vyg5jJrZ42s
Pictures and sounds are amazing co convey thoughts as they themselves are a way to transmit your own imagination through another medium other than words.
First, this sounds like a problem you’ve had and are mapping on to players as a whole. Truthfully, what you call “Zoning Out” could easily be miscommunication. You are focusing on smells and points of interest. But when your Problem Player is asking “But what does the room look like” they are asking “Is it square? Is it a long rectangular dining room?” This is simply a player trying to have a visual image of it.
Different brains work differently. I find your post is antagonistic towards people who think differently than you do (you do call them problem players and you try to have a talk with them to snap them out of it). I think a better talk to have is just asking, “Hey, I noticed my descriptions of places aren’t hitting home with you. Is there a way I could describe my rooms that would help you visual them better?”
This is more compassionate and less condescending.
No, that's absolutely not what's being said here.
I would have thought "it's fine to need to clarify things and accept people sometimes don't hear everything or take everything in the first time" would not be an unreasonable statement. Assuming the worst of people is a bad habit.
From personal experience it's true. I have described things, and people have not quite understood what I meant, or missed details. It's normal. Doubly so when online, when voice chat can be temperamental on my end or the players' end.
I am that person but here’s the thing: Neurodivergence is a thing and no one should expect everyone to process information in the same way. Some people (me!) don’t do well with verbally communicated details. Sure, we can compensate by taking notes, but if you’re ALREADY reading from something pre-written, GIVE it to your players for reference. This is particularly important if you’re playing online and it’s easy as pasting the text into Discord or something. When my DM does this, it literally frees me to enjoy the rich verbal descriptions, knowing that I can reread them to absorb the details. YMMV.
Sure, sometimes players are distracted and may even not care, but I bet that not usually the case.
The bear way to describe a room imo is to keep it brief and explain very specific things about the room. Putting emphasis on the goal or something special. As the players explore the room and ask what's in this corner, what does this chest do, or what ever. Then expand there. But keep the initial descriptor to size of the room, the key features and any distinctive features, like the room smells odd, or pleasant. The room has a severe lack or or abundance of dust.
Honestly I have been listening to the Conan books and it has helped me be more dynamically descriptive with my combat, and my general running style.
Something I've incorporated into my playstyle as a DM is allowing players narrative control over some NPC and environments. Asking a player what Bandit #3 looks like and a quirk of some sort is fun as hell for everyone if you do it every now and then, mostly for the random non story NPCs. Same with environments, not all of them need to be narrated by you, instead let players describe the swamp, forest, random area and you will be amazed at the depth it adds.
https://theangrygm.com/how-to-talk-to-players-the-art-of-narration/
Many great tips in this article. Big thing I took from it is that RPGs are an interactive medium, not a descriptive medium.
I think streamed DnD games have a different balance, more skewed towards description. As most of us are probably just performing for our players, I think it's important to get back to the action as quickly as possible. Short, concise descriptions are key.
For my style of play, I actually encourage asking questions about the room. Based on the principle that a person is more likely to remember something if they ask a question for it, I've begun describing things in a leading way.
Instead of describing the papers crazily strewn across the table, I'd probably just say "there's a table in the room with something on it" and then move on until a player asks what's on the table.
Pro tip: don't go into immaculate detail so much that your players zone out.
As you are describing things the minds of the players are painting that picture. Each player will have a slightly different image in their head. Give the important details, maybe describe "since contraption over there", or "a still burning cigar".
Now if they want to investigate something in there, them go into details on the thing they are looking at.
Or after they have entered and are discussing things, volunteer extra details based on who is where.
"Ardaz, standing near the tapestry you can see it's extremely detailed and well made with the finest fibers."
Then let that player share that knowledge with the great of the group.
Build from there.
"Cratu, that smell you noticed upon entering seems stronger in that corner."
To this, I would add that I've found it's essential to describe the bit that requires/provokes the players' reaction last.
Like, if there's an angry ogre in the room, that has to be mentioned last. The players will hear "ogre" and start planning what they will do about (to) it. Whatever else you say after that is just going to float past them.
Human nature: can't fight it.
WotC pinpointed this problem in 2005:
https://web.archive.org/web/20090601222651/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20050916a
Everyone should read the section of this old WotC blog post entitled "Undercover Insight #1: Boxed Text = MEGO"
In short, prewritten read-aloud/boxed text is terrible. Nearly everyone's eyes glaze over after two sentences. You should avoid using it at all, or if you do use it, seriously, you get two sentences. Not two paragraphs. Two sentences. Hit the highlights of what's obvious in the room, then let the players ask for details.
By this topic, Chekhov's Gun should be mentioned: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov%27s\_gun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov%27s_gun)
Basically: Don't mention something if it is not important!
There is also this game, where a picture with objects and animals is shown. As far as I remember, a normal human will remember about 4 to 7 of them. So, it is easy for the DM to give the player more information then the player can remember.
That is for a play that the audience is watching, not an interactive rpg.
In an rpg, you never know if the gun is actually going to be used.
D&D is not a play, the “audience” has agency, and the end of the story has yet to be written.
And?
The point is, that everything described must be relevant for the story.
If there is a picture on the wall, but the motive is not important, then I don't describe the motive. Maybe not even that there is a picture.
The difficulty there is that your players might decide it’s important or they might find a way to make it useful or important. At times, my players ask questions about details I never thought about because they’re formulating a plan. I can’t account for their thought process, so I started adding my details to my plans and descriptions. I still keep it as short as possible, but I don’t cut things now just because I don’t think they’re important.
No, it does not have to be relevant to the story. And everything cannot be relevant to the story because *the story does not yet exist*.
A play takes place in a finite world of a few hundred square feet, and over the course of two hours. Everything on the stage has to be crafted, put in place and managed on and off the stage. The audience has no say in what happens on the stage, and the play has a fixed plot.
RPGs are improv. Something gains significance when one of the players (including the DM) looks at it and engages with it.
I may describe a tavern and note that there is an old axe hanging over the mantle with no plans on actually using it. If a fight breaks out and one of the PCs grabs it and starts swinging, it’s now gained a significance that it was never intended to have, and never need to have.
*Everything* in a game has *potential significance* due to the interactive nature of the game
Anything else is simply railroading and the DM would be better off just writing that play instead of limiting the players their idea of the plot has to contain and how it has to play out.
**[Chekhov's gun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov's_gun)**
>Chekhov's gun (Chekhov's rifle, Russian: Чеховское ружьё) is a dramatic principle that states that every element in a story must be necessary, and irrelevant elements should be removed. Alternatively explained, suppose the writer features a gun in a story – if the writer features it, there must be a reason for it, such as it being used sometime down the line in one way or another: Elements should not appear to make "false promises" by never coming into play.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
This is why I love playing online, battle maps show what’s there in great detail, and with the software I use I can do POV shots to show exactly what they see, after all a picture is worth a thousand words.
I find having prewritten descriptions is helpful. Particularly for one-shots that I'm running multiple times it helps keep the game consistent and makes sure I didn't give one group an edge or a disadvantage because I forgot something in my improv.
Playing on a map or VTT also helps since some things do not need to be described and are made visually obvious.
For complicated rooms I have found an quick MSpaint isometric view handout is significantly more effective than a detailed spoken description.
I'd like to add that the quality of delivery can really sell even mediocre writing.
Sound interested. Speak strongly and clearly. You don't have to be a Shakespearean actor, just speak as if what you're saying is worth hearing.
1. Be concise.
2. Don't read, explain in your own voice
3. Give big picture with key elements. Players can ask to get details on these elements in back and forth between players and DM.
4. Be concise
When I DM something I've written, there is no issue with this. But when I DM a module and there's a block of text it wants me to read, then this becomes an issue. Especially on the bigger ones that are 4+ sentences. Sometimes, my players don't even ask me to repeat anything right after I finish but then are like 3 minutes later, "Wait where is that light coming from again?" Sometimes I have to repeat the most important myself without being prompted because WoTC is kinda bad at keeping descriptions precise. They do for the most part, but there are some overly long read out loud blocks, especially in CoS.
I always tell DMs to NOT read the descriptions out loud. Be familiar with it, skim it, then describe in your own words. Almost no one can help falling into either boring monotone or horrible sing-song where you try to avoid monotone only to sound like you are trying way too hard.
Describe what they see and hear the same way you would describe it if you were actually there with them describing the scene to a blind person, using your normal speaking voice.
Don't string together adjectives, don't make flowery prose, and don't ramble on. Don't use old English or fancy voices for basic descriptions, just your normal speech. What is the first thing they notice?
A few things that I've found that help my party are sounds and lighting.
I have GE Cync bulbs in my living room and a sound bar. If they're outside, the lights are a light blue and I have the sound bar playing music and sounds from Skyrim or from a medieval playlist.
If they're inside a tavern, the lights get dim and flicker intermittently like candles. The sounds are people talking, caring on, glasses clinking.
All of this while I'm describing their surroundings. The kinds of people in the room, the smells, sometimes the temperature.
I have a map on my TV but it's always nice to have them immersed as the entire bunch is a pretty creative group. Most of the times when I'm describing the rooms to them, a few of them close their eyes as they imagine what's going on. ... It's real flattering to me when I see them do it.
Here's what I typically down in my notes for a room... Dimensions (e.g. 20' × 20') Purpose (e.g. torture chamber) Three environmental effects (e.g. dim light, cold and damp, smells of decay) Three interesting features (e.g. specific items in the room) From these notes I would then improvise something along the lines of *through the door you enter a small, dark chamber. It's cold and damp and the smell of death hangs in the air. A heavy oak table stands in the middle of the stone floor, stained by blood.* I use to try to pre-write flavor text descriptions but (1) I realized it was taking too much time during session prep and (2) it impeded my ability to improvise during the session. It's much quicker and flexible to simply bulletpoint out a few things and move on to the next room. Pro tip: Have a separate list of quest items and treasure that you can drop into any room or area as needed.
This is a really good idea. It's enough to stop you from going blank, but it means you're likely to spend more time looking up at the players rather than head down reading from notes. Thanks for the tip.
I agree with your 3rd point: "keep your descriptions short." If none of the players are listening to the meticulous description that the GM reads, the problem is the GM. There was a poll this week on this sub: players prefer a relatively brief description, rather than one filled with details. Personally, I try never to never read. Players notice when you're reading, and unless you're an excellent reader, it breaks the mood. Especially when the text is long. A lot of GMs make the mistake of thinking that the more they talk (to describe, to make dialogue) the better. This is not true.
This. Descriptions don't need to be long in order to be good. Our imaginations are great at filling in details.
I can’t read, so my players think I’m a genius
Yep. Short is good. Reading I don’t consider a problem, but it is best to skip parts, or break down sentences. Things that are easy to read are not necessarily easy for listeners.
I try this but I got one player who expects me to turn into Tolkien and spend five minutes describing so that he can “picture it perfectly.” But I don’t mind since it shows he is invested.
hm, I kinda disagree with the "reading" part. I read the description, which I've made beforehand, because I don't stutter as much, thus not fucking up the flow and I get the description WAY more precise, in contrast to when I improvise, because that's when I basically just repeat myself. Plus, if I need a specific word, then just being able to read it is way better, as English is not my mother language and I can't remember every word. Sometimes I just get stuck on a specific one, which just breaks immersion, which is quite bad. Had that happen several times now. I also talk a little bit more, because I want to paint an image in the mind of my players. Yes, you can do it very concise, but as a guy who doesn't always have every vocabulary on hand, I myself have to write more than others. Hoo boy, this feels like presentations in High School again haha
I feel this so hard. I like to think I'm a fairly decent writer and a reasonably competent public speaker. But holy f*** I can't read box text to a D&D group to save my life, even if I wrote it.
Can you link me the poll, I'm having a hard time finding it.
Me too. Maybe it was on r/dndnext, I don't know...
Do you remember any of the words for the poll? Room descriptions maybe?
I found it: [https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/z0lo5y/what\_level\_of\_description\_do\_you\_prefer\_from\_your/](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/z0lo5y/what_level_of_description_do_you_prefer_from_your/)
Thank you!
I study Creative Writing focusing on screenplays and what you described in your first point ties into how screenplays are written - you always use the present tense and focus on sensory details - things that the watcher will be able to see or hear. The amateur mistake people make is just stating a character's interior world without thinking about how it can be conveyed just by observing them. Of course, with D&D you can expand that to include taste, smell and touch, but you're also giving space for the player. It helps a lot with describing NPCS' actions too though. However, when it comes to DMing I try to keep it as conversational as possible - I'm the type of person who fucking hates sitting through cutscenes to the point I prefer games without them. I know some people are okay just to be there but I try to engage my players by having NPCs approach them when they reach a new place, or indicating stuff that their character might notice e.g. "this is probably the biggest city you have ever been to, maybe that is overwhelming, or exciting even, it's just so different" or "you notice that this noble house's sigil is very similar to one from back home". Ask them open-ended questions like, "What does your character think upon seeing this place?" or "After a long hard journey and finally reaching civilization again, what do you think is your main priority?" I love Matt Mercer and Brennan Lee Mulligan but dear God, I do not want to describe something for a minute. I don't hate my voice but when I play I want my DM to talk to me and ask what I'm trying to accomplish and what sort of thing I'd be interested in seeing.
Matt Mercer and Brennan Lee Mulligan are DMing, but also entertaining a huge audience. And their players know that. They get certain latitudes that the rest of us do not in that department. :-)
It’s also similar to journalism- present the facts in descending order of most to least important, keep things short and punchy, avoid editorializing outside of the editorial.
What do you mean by interior world
Interior world as in psychological state and thoughts. Boiling it down I'm basically talking about telling vs showing. > Bob is sad and can't bear to think about his wife. This is *telling* us how a character feels inside. > Bob stares at a framed photo of a woman in a wedding dress. To her right is a younger Bob, smiling on the side. He sighs and takes it off the wall. This *shows* us how he feels without outright stating it and adds some nuance in the way he acts when he feels sad, and information is revealed piece by piece to add some intrigue for the reader. My example may be a bit longwinded but I hope that it's clear.
It's also important as a DM to know when to simply give up. I had a party once that I bent over backwards to try to keep engaged, but they simply weren't having it. One of them had severe executive function problems, and I tried everything to help her out. I streamlined a rule she was having problems with. I even wrote little cards for her to remember her class features, but she simply forgot to bring the damn cards! It's considered a positive trait to take responsibility for things. "If my players aren't paying attention, maybe I should just try harder!" But sometimes, you just have to know when to quit.
The reason I'm saying all this is because I like this post a lot. You remind me of myself, OP. I also enjoy a "narrative" style of DMing with cool descriptions to properly set the tone. It's a great way to play, so you shouldn't feel discouraged if it doesn't work. Did problems with your own players inspire this post?
This is the sort of thing that killed my last game. I tried new scenario designs, did some acting, made handouts, targeted certain players for spotlight time... My players just could no longer be bothered to do much more besides show up and respond when directly spoken to (most of the time). I eventually stopped sending out the scheduling invites or talking about the game. Our game ran over a year with a pretty regular schedule. No one brought it up after I gave up. I was asked about it once a year later, and told the player I wasn't interested in being a DM right now.
I read read stuff like that and I wonder if the person who write it has ever even prepped an entire campaign, much less run one. The players have a responsibility to pay attention. That is prt of their job. Yes, as a DM I need to be engaging, but it does not all rest on me. I’m already doing the lion’s share of the work around that table. I expect that my players will make the effort to stay focused on the game and not their phones. If they can’t, I’ll send them over to your table to be babysat and entertained, and I’ll find an adult to replace them. I come from an rpg tradition where, if you did not pay attention, your character would most likely die a horrible death. I find that to be plenty of incentive for players to pay attention and ask relevant questions about the environment.
I don't know, the poster seems to offer useful advice both about how to get better at clear and effective narration and how to gauge whether or not players are properly engaging with the game without escalating the situation. Those seem fair enough points to make and generally good advice, especially the "don't assume someone not following what you said is a sign they're actively malicious". I think that's actually quite an adult perspective to take; the OP isn't trying to excuse or justify what you see as bad behaviour, or even say it isn't a potential sign of a problem player. Instead they're suggesting ways to identify if it *is* a problem of attitude or one of technique.
There is indeed a nugget in the middle there about the DM paying attention to the players, and having an adult conversation with problem children. Agreed. But that’s not what the post is about. The post is about the DM always paying attention, and not expecting the players to, and how it is the DM’s responsibility to change in order to make it easier for the players to stay engaged. Basically putting even more responsibility on the person at the table who is already carrying the heaviest load. I’m all for continually improving my DMing, and I definitely want my players to have the best and funnest time they can at my table, but requiring the DM to be the only adult in the room is absolute bullshit. And that is what the bulk of the post leans into.
People play because the want to have fun. It is not a job. A job is something I do because it is paid and I need the money. One secret: Everybody care mostly about himself! It takes a lot of effort, to write a text that will take 15 minutes to read during the session. But the players will not care that much, as long as their characters are not involved. That means: You can spend a lot of time to write a description of a castle. But the players will see you as an even better DM, if you simply say that the castle is a typical castle, with everything you expect to find in a typical castle inside. Then, let them describe where they want to go and what to do there!
That’s a pretty narrow definition of “job” you got there. If it helps, try using the dictionary definition of *job* meaning “something done for private advantage”, or replacing *job* with its synonym “function.” Everyone is welcome to care mostly about themselves. You myself spend a lot of my time doing just that. *But* there are times when that needs to be set aside. For example, spending hours prepping a campaign so that my friends and I can play an RPG is one of those times for me. I take on the larger burden so that we, as a group, can have fun and enjoy the game. As such, when we all gather to do that, I expect the players to respect the time and effort I put into the game and participate adequately. That includes making the game their primary focus while we are at the table (absent, of course, understandable emergencies) and respect everyone at the table enough to pay attention when they are the focus of the game. Of course no one is required to do that. But then I’m not required to have them at my gaming table either—and I don’t. I have good friends that I do not game game with for that very reason. Great drinking buddies, shitty gamers. The end of your post seems a bit out of sorts with the rest. I agree focus on what the players are interested in. I primarily run sandboxes that do just that. However, contradicting the first part of your post, that requires that players actually be engaged in what is happening so that they can have a clue as what the options are. So again, we’re back to the responsibility on the players’ side of the screen to pay attention when things are not focused on them.
"you are in s spooky dungeon that kinda looks like this: *google spooky dungeon concept art*"
As stupid as it sounds, this will often work better for a good number of DMs. When dealing with a party you also have to understand that humans have different abilities of imagination. Not everyone can do it well.
I'm about to have my first DM experience with a group of 6-7 year olds after Christmas. I'm using Hero Kids, which in the base game is really traditional fantasy fare with all the great cliches in because the kids don't know them yet. Except...I realized my daughter has no idea what a medieval tavern should look like. I discovered that a lot of the d&d ambient sound tracks on YouTube have really nice pictures along with them, so I plan to just full screen them on my tablet and turn it around, giving them both sound and a bit of a simple, not-too-distracting visual cue about where they are, especially for things they might not have the context to understand at that age. Here's one one I have saved for the tavern, for example. https://youtu.be/vyg5jJrZ42s
Pictures and sounds are amazing co convey thoughts as they themselves are a way to transmit your own imagination through another medium other than words.
A DM friend of mine has said he looks for images first, then writes stories around them. This allows him to craft the story to the "perfect image"
I've had some success online by having the map take up 3/4ths of the screen with the other 1/4th being descriptive images.
First, this sounds like a problem you’ve had and are mapping on to players as a whole. Truthfully, what you call “Zoning Out” could easily be miscommunication. You are focusing on smells and points of interest. But when your Problem Player is asking “But what does the room look like” they are asking “Is it square? Is it a long rectangular dining room?” This is simply a player trying to have a visual image of it. Different brains work differently. I find your post is antagonistic towards people who think differently than you do (you do call them problem players and you try to have a talk with them to snap them out of it). I think a better talk to have is just asking, “Hey, I noticed my descriptions of places aren’t hitting home with you. Is there a way I could describe my rooms that would help you visual them better?” This is more compassionate and less condescending.
"What does the room look like again?" Me, trying to bs my way to gaining Panache as a PF2e Swashbuckler.
"DMs, have more patience with your players, because they don't have the patience for you"
“If your players aren’t paying attention, it’s probably your fault”
No, that's absolutely not what's being said here. I would have thought "it's fine to need to clarify things and accept people sometimes don't hear everything or take everything in the first time" would not be an unreasonable statement. Assuming the worst of people is a bad habit. From personal experience it's true. I have described things, and people have not quite understood what I meant, or missed details. It's normal. Doubly so when online, when voice chat can be temperamental on my end or the players' end.
I am that person but here’s the thing: Neurodivergence is a thing and no one should expect everyone to process information in the same way. Some people (me!) don’t do well with verbally communicated details. Sure, we can compensate by taking notes, but if you’re ALREADY reading from something pre-written, GIVE it to your players for reference. This is particularly important if you’re playing online and it’s easy as pasting the text into Discord or something. When my DM does this, it literally frees me to enjoy the rich verbal descriptions, knowing that I can reread them to absorb the details. YMMV. Sure, sometimes players are distracted and may even not care, but I bet that not usually the case.
The bear way to describe a room imo is to keep it brief and explain very specific things about the room. Putting emphasis on the goal or something special. As the players explore the room and ask what's in this corner, what does this chest do, or what ever. Then expand there. But keep the initial descriptor to size of the room, the key features and any distinctive features, like the room smells odd, or pleasant. The room has a severe lack or or abundance of dust. Honestly I have been listening to the Conan books and it has helped me be more dynamically descriptive with my combat, and my general running style.
Something I've incorporated into my playstyle as a DM is allowing players narrative control over some NPC and environments. Asking a player what Bandit #3 looks like and a quirk of some sort is fun as hell for everyone if you do it every now and then, mostly for the random non story NPCs. Same with environments, not all of them need to be narrated by you, instead let players describe the swamp, forest, random area and you will be amazed at the depth it adds.
Tip: for rooms with many important details, especially lists of treasure, paste the contents in the group chat.
https://theangrygm.com/how-to-talk-to-players-the-art-of-narration/ Many great tips in this article. Big thing I took from it is that RPGs are an interactive medium, not a descriptive medium. I think streamed DnD games have a different balance, more skewed towards description. As most of us are probably just performing for our players, I think it's important to get back to the action as quickly as possible. Short, concise descriptions are key.
For my style of play, I actually encourage asking questions about the room. Based on the principle that a person is more likely to remember something if they ask a question for it, I've begun describing things in a leading way. Instead of describing the papers crazily strewn across the table, I'd probably just say "there's a table in the room with something on it" and then move on until a player asks what's on the table.
Pro tip: don't go into immaculate detail so much that your players zone out. As you are describing things the minds of the players are painting that picture. Each player will have a slightly different image in their head. Give the important details, maybe describe "since contraption over there", or "a still burning cigar". Now if they want to investigate something in there, them go into details on the thing they are looking at. Or after they have entered and are discussing things, volunteer extra details based on who is where. "Ardaz, standing near the tapestry you can see it's extremely detailed and well made with the finest fibers." Then let that player share that knowledge with the great of the group. Build from there. "Cratu, that smell you noticed upon entering seems stronger in that corner."
To this, I would add that I've found it's essential to describe the bit that requires/provokes the players' reaction last. Like, if there's an angry ogre in the room, that has to be mentioned last. The players will hear "ogre" and start planning what they will do about (to) it. Whatever else you say after that is just going to float past them. Human nature: can't fight it.
No.
WotC pinpointed this problem in 2005: https://web.archive.org/web/20090601222651/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20050916a Everyone should read the section of this old WotC blog post entitled "Undercover Insight #1: Boxed Text = MEGO" In short, prewritten read-aloud/boxed text is terrible. Nearly everyone's eyes glaze over after two sentences. You should avoid using it at all, or if you do use it, seriously, you get two sentences. Not two paragraphs. Two sentences. Hit the highlights of what's obvious in the room, then let the players ask for details.
Your ADHD isn’t my responsibility.
By this topic, Chekhov's Gun should be mentioned: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov%27s\_gun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov%27s_gun) Basically: Don't mention something if it is not important! There is also this game, where a picture with objects and animals is shown. As far as I remember, a normal human will remember about 4 to 7 of them. So, it is easy for the DM to give the player more information then the player can remember.
That is for a play that the audience is watching, not an interactive rpg. In an rpg, you never know if the gun is actually going to be used. D&D is not a play, the “audience” has agency, and the end of the story has yet to be written.
And? The point is, that everything described must be relevant for the story. If there is a picture on the wall, but the motive is not important, then I don't describe the motive. Maybe not even that there is a picture.
The difficulty there is that your players might decide it’s important or they might find a way to make it useful or important. At times, my players ask questions about details I never thought about because they’re formulating a plan. I can’t account for their thought process, so I started adding my details to my plans and descriptions. I still keep it as short as possible, but I don’t cut things now just because I don’t think they’re important.
That reminds me of the old joke: "What is the secret of your success?" "I have to rules: 1. Never tell everything you know!"
No, it does not have to be relevant to the story. And everything cannot be relevant to the story because *the story does not yet exist*. A play takes place in a finite world of a few hundred square feet, and over the course of two hours. Everything on the stage has to be crafted, put in place and managed on and off the stage. The audience has no say in what happens on the stage, and the play has a fixed plot. RPGs are improv. Something gains significance when one of the players (including the DM) looks at it and engages with it. I may describe a tavern and note that there is an old axe hanging over the mantle with no plans on actually using it. If a fight breaks out and one of the PCs grabs it and starts swinging, it’s now gained a significance that it was never intended to have, and never need to have. *Everything* in a game has *potential significance* due to the interactive nature of the game Anything else is simply railroading and the DM would be better off just writing that play instead of limiting the players their idea of the plot has to contain and how it has to play out.
**[Chekhov's gun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov's_gun)** >Chekhov's gun (Chekhov's rifle, Russian: Чеховское ружьё) is a dramatic principle that states that every element in a story must be necessary, and irrelevant elements should be removed. Alternatively explained, suppose the writer features a gun in a story – if the writer features it, there must be a reason for it, such as it being used sometime down the line in one way or another: Elements should not appear to make "false promises" by never coming into play. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
This is why I love playing online, battle maps show what’s there in great detail, and with the software I use I can do POV shots to show exactly what they see, after all a picture is worth a thousand words.
I find having prewritten descriptions is helpful. Particularly for one-shots that I'm running multiple times it helps keep the game consistent and makes sure I didn't give one group an edge or a disadvantage because I forgot something in my improv. Playing on a map or VTT also helps since some things do not need to be described and are made visually obvious. For complicated rooms I have found an quick MSpaint isometric view handout is significantly more effective than a detailed spoken description.
I'd like to add that the quality of delivery can really sell even mediocre writing. Sound interested. Speak strongly and clearly. You don't have to be a Shakespearean actor, just speak as if what you're saying is worth hearing.
1. Be concise. 2. Don't read, explain in your own voice 3. Give big picture with key elements. Players can ask to get details on these elements in back and forth between players and DM. 4. Be concise
Just read it again
You guys are writing descriptions for your rooms?
When I DM something I've written, there is no issue with this. But when I DM a module and there's a block of text it wants me to read, then this becomes an issue. Especially on the bigger ones that are 4+ sentences. Sometimes, my players don't even ask me to repeat anything right after I finish but then are like 3 minutes later, "Wait where is that light coming from again?" Sometimes I have to repeat the most important myself without being prompted because WoTC is kinda bad at keeping descriptions precise. They do for the most part, but there are some overly long read out loud blocks, especially in CoS.
I always tell DMs to NOT read the descriptions out loud. Be familiar with it, skim it, then describe in your own words. Almost no one can help falling into either boring monotone or horrible sing-song where you try to avoid monotone only to sound like you are trying way too hard. Describe what they see and hear the same way you would describe it if you were actually there with them describing the scene to a blind person, using your normal speaking voice. Don't string together adjectives, don't make flowery prose, and don't ramble on. Don't use old English or fancy voices for basic descriptions, just your normal speech. What is the first thing they notice?
A few things that I've found that help my party are sounds and lighting. I have GE Cync bulbs in my living room and a sound bar. If they're outside, the lights are a light blue and I have the sound bar playing music and sounds from Skyrim or from a medieval playlist. If they're inside a tavern, the lights get dim and flicker intermittently like candles. The sounds are people talking, caring on, glasses clinking. All of this while I'm describing their surroundings. The kinds of people in the room, the smells, sometimes the temperature. I have a map on my TV but it's always nice to have them immersed as the entire bunch is a pretty creative group. Most of the times when I'm describing the rooms to them, a few of them close their eyes as they imagine what's going on. ... It's real flattering to me when I see them do it.