DMing is Not Storytelling

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Medium is also an element. All of my games are in third-person perspective written prose. First-person perspective leads to suspicion of too much self-identification with the PC.
You say that like it's and thung to self identify with your avatar in the game.
 
You say that like it's and thung to self identify with your avatar in the game.
It can be a thing and often leads to a lot of bad behavior in my circles, yes. First-person perspective is often a red flag in this regard.

It's not the only reason players use third-person. Some people just prefer a more literary approach but don't want to describe their character's internal state. But self-identification is a real risk. Probably less so for you live players I hope.
 
It can be a thing and often leads to a lot of bad behavior in my circles, yes. First-person perspective is often a red flag in this regard.

It's not the only reason players use third-person. Some people just prefer a more literary approach but don't want to describe their character's internal state. But self-identification is a real risk. Probably less so for you live players I hope.
Having experience with both, self-identification happens as much in written as it does in live RPG, and vice versa. But I've never known why self-identification is pointed to as the culprit for bad behaviour in online circles...:shade:

Like, I know the usual explanation - it leads to players not being able to take a setback happening to the character, taking things personally, and assuming that just because my character likes hanging with yours, I'd like to meet you IRL, for example.
But IME, it's about the player. The same player would have been unable to deal with setbacks (and so on) even if writing in third person, or RPing offline:thumbsup:.
 
It can be a thing and often leads to a lot of bad behavior in my circles, yes. First-person perspective is often a red flag in this regard.

It's not the only reason players use third-person. Some people just prefer a more literary approach but don't want to describe their character's internal state. But self-identification is a real risk. Probably less so for you live players I hope.
I know first or third person is just a choice. But I find it intriguing that you describe first person as a red flag.

Mostly because I've found third person players to be either flakey or likely to cause chaos in game. Which is, I admit a generalisation.

I've found disruptive players and people who throw tantrums when their characters suffer negative consequences to their actions to be narcissistic spoiled types. How they act at the table is a sort of mirror to how they are in real life.

It is interesting how different groups see different things. Just goes to show, the Internet doesn't make us all conform as much as you might think.
 
I've found disruptive players and people who throw tantrums when their characters suffer negative consequences to their actions to be narcissistic spoiled types. How they act at the table is a sort of mirror to how they are in real life.
I didn't believe that advice a few years earlier. Maybe I should have:shade:.
 
I think we tend to speak first person at my table, but it also seems to get mixed up a bit as well. I tend not to put too much stock into the choice (people often use first person in board games with tokens that don't represent a character and say "I do x" because they are the one making a decision about that to do...so a person saying "I go to the inn and punch the innkeeper in the face" could just be saying it that way because they are the one making the decision about what they are doing in the game (not because they are more in character than someone speaking in the third person).
 
Adding to what BedrockBrendan BedrockBrendan said, I see first person speech usually lacks a lot of needed descriptions behind. That's why I often ask for a third person overview of the characters actions on behalf of the table as audience. Also to adjudicate and understand better their declarations.
 
It can be a thing and often leads to a lot of bad behavior in my circles, yes. First-person perspective is often a red flag in this regard.

It's not the only reason players use third-person. Some people just prefer a more literary approach but don't want to describe their character's internal state. But self-identification is a real risk. Probably less so for you live players I hope.
Before anyone starts disagreeing with him, understand what he said.

His games are in written prose. There is no talking live between characters, either in person or online. It’s PbP or PbM or something. It may even be in epistolary form, who knows.

I wouldn’t expect the written game to have much in common to live games as far as “danger signs” or behavior goes.
 
Before anyone starts disagreeing with him, understand what he said.

His games are in written prose. There is no talking live between characters, either in person or online. It’s PbP or PbM or something. It may even be in epistolary form, who knows.

I wouldn’t expect the written game to have much in common to live games as far as “danger signs” or behavior goes.

There is live communication between the characters online. It's just still in written prose, usually in paragraph format. Think like old AOL RP chatrooms or other such horrors.

You're right about the difference in red flags, though. Player anonymity is easier, and so is over-identification with a character, especially in the long-running campaigns that groups can favor.

And with the authority of somebody who has a lot of anecdotal experience with the subject but not much data, some people who prefer this method do so because they have, uh. Problems. Perhaps moreso than the average live player.
 
I've never detected any such correlation, most players seem to switch between first and third person freely. Really activel role-players in my experience tend to have more a sense of humour regarding play, not less.
 
I guess I've been lucky to either not have seen or not have been impacted by problematic over-identification.

On the other hand, a definite goal and joy has been when players are immersed and experiencing the game world and characters as if they were more or less real.

So my first thought after reading about concern about over-identification, is concern about about worry about that interfering with immersion. But that's all just me imagining someone else's experience of games I wasn't involved in.

I do see how in PBP written play, 3rd person wording tends to be used more than it is in live games, perhaps without much/any effect on immersion. I think in PBP, sometimes 3rd person makes things slightly easier to follow, especially if the player PM'd the GM, who then forwards some it to the group.
 
I think there's been some incredibly bad faith interpretations based on chips on the shoulders left over from "personalities" on other forums.
In what sense?
Adding to what BedrockBrendan BedrockBrendan said, I see first person speech usually lacks a lot of needed descriptions behind. That's why I often ask for a third person overview of the characters actions on behalf of the table as audience. Also to adjudicate and understand better their declarations.
Same here
 
Adding to what BedrockBrendan BedrockBrendan said, I see first person speech usually lacks a lot of needed descriptions behind. That's why I often ask for a third person overview of the characters actions on behalf of the table as audience. Also to adjudicate and understand better their declarations.
...:thought:...:thought:...That is an interesting point. :thumbsup:

If someone is going to attack, and declare it in first person, they aren't thinking in author mode, and as such, are not very likely to add in narrative details that someone in third person would.

It can be argued that someone in third person, by giving more narration to what they're doing, avoids a quick GM-Player Q&A which may be more impactful to IC immersion for the other players (or even the active player) then hearing the third person narrative declaration.

Then again, I've noticed that first person players tend to add in detail that is obviously needed, like positioning, path they are taking, anything that might invoke a skill check (acrobatics, outmaneuvre), etc. So it's still first person, but adds in detail that others need to parse out what exactly is happening and get a proper image in their heads.

For those who can play with maps and miniatures or other form of representation of the PC's space and location without impacting IC immersion (not all can), I've noticed that such representation cuts down on the amount of narration needed immensely.
 
Adding to what BedrockBrendan BedrockBrendan said, I see first person speech usually lacks a lot of needed descriptions behind. That's why I often ask for a third person overview of the characters actions on behalf of the table as audience. Also to adjudicate and understand better their declarations.

I haven't analyzed it, but I suspect in my own games first person tends to get used more for times when we are taking more time to deal with what is going on in the present moment, where time is moving more slowly (times where characters are interacting heavily or where something really important is going on) and third person is probably used more for when we are trying to move quickly over stuff that needs time elapse (someone taking care of some business in the city that people don't really want to focus on but we need to sort out what it was and how it was done----which could turn into a more in depth interaction if something arises). But this is just a guess (haven't sat down and paid attention to these shifts)
 
Medium is also an element. All of my games are in third-person perspective written prose. First-person perspective leads to suspicion of too much self-identification with the PC.
How much is too much? If I can immerse myself in character that's a good session IMO. I immerse in game more easily.

I can't say I notice how I describe character actions in game. I definitely speak in character rather than describe the kind of thing I am saying.
 
For those who can play with maps and miniatures or other form of representation of the PC's space and location without impacting IC immersion (not all can), I've noticed that such representation cuts down on the amount of narration needed immensely.
This has been my experience as well with minis and maps.
 
The use of minis and maps is an interesting but mostly elided source of different opinions here on the Pub IMO. It changes the way a game plays quite a bit and very much mitigates for a particular approach at the table. Personally, I'm not a maps and minis guy (mostly, not that I don't enjoy it) and that also changes how I see and talk about what a game looks like at the table. Different strokes and all that.
 
For those who can play with maps and miniatures or other form of representation of the PC's space and location without impacting IC immersion (not all can), I've noticed that such representation cuts down on the amount of narration needed immensely.

Gosh, tabletop representation is so helpful, I had no idea it breaks immersion for some people. I've been burned many times when my mental map didn't line up with the GMs and I feel tabletop representation helps mitigate that. Even for something like Mothership that doesn't need the full grid n' minis treatment I would use an abstracted Final Fantasy-style lineup of representative tokens with abstracted ranges (i.e. engaged, nearby, far away) to keep a handle on things.

That said you might have a point as I have to remind my players every few sessions that the grid and static minis are an abstraction and not to mistake the menu for the meal LOL.


It changes the way a game plays quite a bit and very much mitigates for a particular approach at the table. Personally, I'm not a maps and minis guy (mostly, not that I don't enjoy it) and that also changes how I see and talk about what a game looks like at the table. Different strokes and all that.
Can you go into detail as to why? Explain it like I am 5
 
On 1st person vs 3rd person, how about the 3rd person past tense that I have seen a few use with play by post. That's always sort of jarring to me.
 
Can you go into detail as to why? Explain it like I am 5
Sure. When you regularly have a map and minis the players always know exactly where they are in relation to everything else in the scene. That takes some of the mechanical heft of a game an offloads in onto the map. By that I mean there's never any questions about how far away X is, whether you can see Y, or whatever. So what a player says in a game like that tends to be predicated on that precise knowledge of position in space, by which I mean their action declarations are filtered through the rubric of "what the map says". That allows for some very finely tuned tactical declaration, among a bunch of other things.

The other end of the spectrum is TotM, where GM description does similar work to the map. The difference is that the players don't have the same precise knowledge of the position of bodies in space. Instead their understanding of the scene tends to be a little more idiosyncratic or ephemeral, and more based on how they see things in their minds eye based on their character as the center of the scene (from a pov standpoint anyway). Action declaration in TotM tends to be more in response to specific stimuli, like other player's actions, or monster actions.

The difference between the two can perhaps best be described as initiative or not. Map games are usually games with set turns and an initiative order of some kind. Tactical thinking in that environment tends to be based on the map as it stands at the beginning of the round. In contrast, TotM combat is often more an action-reaction kind of affair without the turn as such a rigorous boundary (even games that have a turn order).

The above is obviously the broadest of strokes, and things would change based on specific system/players etc.
 
The other end of the spectrum is TotM, where GM description does similar work to the map. The difference is that the players don't have the same precise knowledge of the position of bodies in space. Instead their understanding of the scene tends to be a little more idiosyncratic or ephemeral, and more based on how they see things in their minds eye based on their character as the center of the scene (from a pov standpoint anyway). Action declaration in TotM tends to be more in response to specific stimuli, like other player's actions, or monster actions.

I don’t have an issue with theater of the mind but I do have an issue when it used as described above. Why? Because in life one has situational awareness. LARPS are not realistic in a lot of respect but one area they are spot on is when it comes to combat is situational awareness. And the fact is that even novices are not as vague about what going as the above suggests. Especially if we are talking combat rounds that are few seconds long. After playing LARPS for a number of years and given what I went through and watched other go through, vague descriptions of where folks are located and who there falls flat for me.

When I use Theater of the Mind I keep the characters situational awareness in mind when describing what happening. I am willing to answer any and all questions relating to position, location, and what the character sees. And I studiously avoid pulling gotchas based on the situation.

The difference between the two can perhaps best be described as initiative or not. Map games are usually games with set turns and an initiative order of some kind. Tactical thinking in that environment tends to be based on the map as it stands at the beginning of the round. In contrast, TotM combat is often more an action-reaction kind of affair without the turn as such a rigorous boundary (even games that have a turn order).
Sorry not buying this, the absence or a map doesn't alter how handles turn order and initiative. For example I used maps, minis (or tokens), and detailed combat system like GURPS. However I will freely ignore the initiative or turn order when it makes sense. For example in a corridor fight where those in the back has better situational awareness than those who are in the front. As a result I will those in the front go first followed by the next in line. If the battle opens up, I will then resort to the initiative rules.

The above is obviously the broadest of strokes, and things would change based on specific system/players etc.
However what are the first principles in operation here that cut across systems, genres, and settings? When it comes to fantasy roleplaying, characters are far aware of their general surroundings than what most system give credit for.
 
Whether we admit it to ourselves or not, a removed bird's eye map implies an objectivity typically not available to In-Character perspective. Outside of setting special powers or technology a shared heads-up-display (HUD) is definitely a filter removed from IC subjective perspective. Works great for video games, rather "magic dispelling" of suspended disbelief in certain TTRPG tables.

That said, I've had to use it when some players are utterly lost by description. Different people have their own powers and capacities plus my meeting the audience/players as best I can. I have noticed more reading (& audiobooks) helps develop spatial description comprehension, if that may help some of your players.
 
It's very hard for me to conceive of maintaining a first person DIC PoV while looking at a literal third person birds eye view representation of events
I am aware of this when I a referee. So unlike when I play board or wargames, I always make eye contact with the player when it is their turn. However elaborate the setup I make is an aide for the players to describe for me what they are doing as their character. Like skill rolls, I encourage description first and moving minis second. I do things like silently count down in my head and if the players starts to ponder like a board game I will politely but firmly start counting down "5.. 4.." Cutting some slack for the novices to my table.

I don't make this type of layout often. In this case it was because it was the best way of bringing the situational awareness the character would have to life. A riot in the City State of the Invincible Overlord.

IMG_2304.JPG
IMG_2310.JPG
IMG_2323.JPG


Most of the time I build (or draw) it in small sections

RSC+004.JPG


RSC+007.JPG

Rob's Note: I ran out of Giant Toads so I used some snake minis. But entire room was filled with Giant Toads.

The Party's solution
RSC+009.JPG


To make this work in a free form matter, I have to be well organized and not be dogmatic about using anything as a one size fits all solution. For example I avoid using terrain for wilderness encounters and rely on wilderness tiles or battlemaps. I will often resort to Theater of the Mind and gesturing at a map laid on the table. And to be clear I strongly feel there is no one way to approach this. Just a bunch of technique to mix and match based on situation, temperament and of course whether it is fun to do or not.

IMG_2406.JPG



Session_02.jpg

RSC_IPAD+078.JPG

Rob's Note: The orcs try to kill the party invading their lair by stampeding their cattle and pigs through the cave.
 
I don’t have an issue with theater of the mind but I do have an issue when it used as described above. Why? Because in life one has situational awareness. LARPS are not realistic in a lot of respect but one area they are spot on is when it comes to combat is situational awareness. And the fact is that even novices are not as vague about what going as the above suggests. Especially if we are talking combat rounds that are few seconds long. After playing LARPS for a number of years and given what I went through and watched other go through, vague descriptions of where folks are located and who there falls flat for me.

When I use Theater of the Mind I keep the characters situational awareness in mind when describing what happening. I am willing to answer any and all questions relating to position, location, and what the character sees. And I studiously avoid pulling gotchas based on the situation.


Sorry not buying this, the absence or a map doesn't alter how handles turn order and initiative. For example I used maps, minis (or tokens), and detailed combat system like GURPS. However I will freely ignore the initiative or turn order when it makes sense. For example in a corridor fight where those in the back has better situational awareness than those who are in the front. As a result I will those in the front go first followed by the next in line. If the battle opens up, I will then resort to the initiative rules.


However what are the first principles in operation here that cut across systems, genres, and settings? When it comes to fantasy roleplaying, characters are far aware of their general surroundings than what most system give credit for.
So, where's the gotcha in my post? There isn't one. I can and do answer all the kinds of questions you mention. However, the resulting situational awareness is of a different kind than one gets with a map. Both more and less realistic IMO. It suits some games and players very well (hence the popularity), but for others it falls flat. There's no value judgement inherent in my post.

For what it's worth I very much agree with your thoughts on situationally ignoring initiative in favour of more accurate situational awareness factors.

Having a map changes how the players think about their actions, not how initiative works. Initiative is just the context, but it's a context that does tend to be part and parcel of significantly map-based play.

As for first principles, I always strive for the best situational awareness I can foster as a GM, regardless of maps or system. Players need information to make rational decisions. My point was more about how the two approaches feel very different at the table.
 
Last edited:
I always want a map and mins (or tokens) because in my experience the lack of them is grey space for DM bullshitting their way through an encounter or a session.

That doesn't mean everyone not using them is bullshitting their way through an encounter or a session, but I get that distinct feeling much less often with DMs that do.
 
I always want a map and mins (or tokens) because in my experience the lack of them is grey space for DM bullshitting their way through an encounter or a session.

That doesn't mean everyone not using them is bullshitting their way through an encounter or a session, but I get that distinct feeling much less often with DMs that do.
Yeah, because it involves significant extra prep work.

As long as you don't have a DM shortage, all fine.
 
I always want a map and mins (or tokens) because in my experience the lack of them is grey space for DM bullshitting their way through an encounter or a session.

That doesn't mean everyone not using them is bullshitting their way through an encounter or a session, but I get that distinct feeling much less often with DMs that do.

This is good to consider because not all such concerns like this needs to be ascribed to malice. It can just as easily be ascribed to human error (due to personal processing speed or multitasking other elements simultaneously).

I personally do a mini-maps as behind-the-screen GM reference then describe for Theater of the Mind. That said, I too have been caught during multitasking (e.g. just-in-time randomized content creation, like Reaction Tables & Morale Responses) drifting the placement. I try to reasure Players that I am their PCs' biggest fans, so as to keep the channels open so they can help me too when such discrepencies arise.

Yes, it's a trust issue, but it is good to remember its framing need not always be an antagonistic one. It can be supportive of one's strengths v. weaknesses if open and honest together.
 
Yeah, because it involves significant extra prep work.

As long as you don't have a DM shortage, all fine.
Being impatient and lazy, I use miniatures as a time saver and can set up most encounters quickly. The players already have their miniatures + retainers set up on the table in marching order. I have a player fetching minis (which are already organized by broad groups) while I draw on the grid and describe the scene. Obviously there are exceptions and this description doesn't cover every situation under the sun but typically my setup is quite fast.

That said, I have sat in plenty of games where grid + minis increased prep time. Sometimes that is well worth the effort and enhances the experience such as the lovely post upthread by @ robertsconley robertsconley. Other times it is just a drag like when the DM interrupts the game for 20 minutes to carefully break out the Dwarven Forge and lovingly painted miniatures for every little skirmish.
 
I run games every year (edit - in normal years) at conventions with simple tokens on a laminated grid. The use of tokens+grid doesn't take have to take up any meaningful extra time. And if it takes "extra prep" outside of the tokens+grid themselves, I definitely want to know if a DM considers that type of prep "extra".
 
In the end, what it comes down to is 1 picture= (1000 words) x (every single place the PCs go). Over the course of the evening, that’s a pretty decent chunk of time spent describing things that physical representation shows you at a fraction of a second glance.

Having to go through that extra 3rd person layer to get to the IC Immersion can be worth it just for having everyone’s movie-in-their-head taking place on the exact same set. Plus, as Rob said, people who kill things for a living probably are pretty good at melee tactics, and situational awareness, that the PC‘s would have, opening up tactical moves (that the PCs would make) actually aids immersion as it gives an objective reference point for what their PCs eyes are seeing.

Much of the same description is exactly the same, only without belabouring obvious information everyone can see.
 
The other end of the spectrum is TotM, where GM description does similar work to the map. The difference is that the players don't have the same precise knowledge of the position of bodies in space. Instead their understanding of the scene tends to be a little more idiosyncratic or ephemeral, and more based on how they see things in their minds eye based on their character as the center of the scene (from a pov standpoint anyway). Action declaration in TotM tends to be more in response to specific stimuli, like other player's actions, or monster actions.

The difference between the two can perhaps best be described as initiative or not. Map games are usually games with set turns and an initiative order of some kind. Tactical thinking in that environment tends to be based on the map as it stands at the beginning of the round. In contrast, TotM combat is often more an action-reaction kind of affair without the turn as such a rigorous boundary (even games that have a turn order).

The above is obviously the broadest of strokes, and things would change based on specific system/players etc.



I've also noted before that how well TotM works for people in games where positioning and cover are important tends to turn heavily on how good the GM and player's spatial memory, imagination and description is. Mine, frankly, is middlin' poor which is why even if I'm in a game that doesn't entirely demand it because of lack of precision in things like movement and range, I almost always as a GM set up combats using a VTT so that I can make sure what I'm picturing in regard to the situation and the players understanding of it is at least halfway close.


Maps don't entirely resolve the first person-third person question though, as you can have noncombat situations where there's more data you wish to convey than will be in purely dialog, whether its body language and tone (because you can't always assume the player's expression of these will sync up with the character) or are doing things that require detail (you can still do that while using "I", but it comes across as, to say the least, a little odd).
 
As someone who is highly visual (I make data/maps from satellite and aerial imagery all day) and who sometimes struggles to form the correct image of a scene from a verbal description (just ask my wife how much I suck at taking landmark driving directions) I really appreciate it when a GM has visuals that at least give me a frame of reference spatially.

But I'm a "less is more" guy. If there's some super detailed, high resolution battle-map that looks like it was taken straight from some video game, and character/monster tokens are super high rez, then that's too much for me and pulls me out of being able to form a mental image of the ground at eye-level. I've had to come to these conclusions the hard way, by playing and running games almost exclusively on VTT platforms for the past 6 years, where I fell into the trap of trying to make maps too pretty and then realizing later in followup conversations, that it detracted from the enjoyment that some players have . . . and frankly the enjoyment I get out of stuff being left to the imagination.
 
Being impatient and lazy, I use miniatures as a time saver and can set up most encounters quickly. The players already have their miniatures + retainers set up on the table in marching order. I have a player fetching minis (which are already organized by broad groups) while I draw on the grid and describe the scene. Obviously there are exceptions and this description doesn't cover every situation under the sun but typically my setup is quite fast.

That said, I have sat in plenty of games where grid + minis increased prep time. Sometimes that is well worth the effort and enhances the experience such as the lovely post upthread by @ robertsconley robertsconley. Other times it is just a drag like when the DM interrupts the game for 20 minutes to carefully break out the Dwarven Forge and lovingly painted miniatures for every little skirmish.

One of the advantages of a VTT is you can do most of this stuff in advance, and even if you do it on the fly it can be pretty fast if you aren't getting fussy.
 
One of the advantages of a VTT is you can do most of this stuff in advance, and even if you do it on the fly it can be pretty fast if you aren't getting fussy.
Unfortunately in my experience VTT prep is a big time sink (LOL just learning how to prep in VTT is a time sink for me) but obviously this doesn't hold true for everyone. I am sure once you get the hang of it is easy-peasy but I don't have the time or energy to learn how
 
Unfortunately in my experience VTT prep is a big time sink (LOL just learning how to prep in VTT is a time sink for me) but obviously this doesn't hold true for everyone. I am sure once you get the hang of it is easy-peasy but I don't have the time or energy to learn how
Legit. But honestly, I can put together a really simple battlemap (assuming I don't have something I can just grab and use, which with fantasy is pretty likely for outdoors at least) and throw some tokens on a board in five minutes. If that's too long for some people, well, it is what it is, but that's a drop in the bucket of the time I'm spending on a game in and out for the most part. Its hard for me to see it as significant.

(This doesn't mean I don't spend more, often significantly more in some cases, but that's more about me being OCD than any necessity).
 
The furthest I am willing to extend myself into the world of maps and minis is a small white board and a little collection of differently coloured magnets. Sometimes you just need a sketch, especially for complex environments or engagements.
 
The furthest I am willing to extend myself into the world of maps and minis is a small white board and a little collection of differently coloured magnets. Sometimes you just need a sketch, especially for complex environments or engagements.
Same here. Though I'm yet to try VTTs, but I suspect my conclusions would be close to Brock Savage Brock Savage 's.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top