The first thing I would say is that in the second example, you're not simply setting the scene, you're giving the resolution as well./ If this section is about scene setting, why are we getting into the detail of resolution? There has been no mention of conflict, challenge or whatever so far, yet th text seems to imply everything is narrated and resolved by one individual.

If you're looking for clarity, this needs to be worked on. Set the scene by all means, but don't let it drift into other elements of gameplay, that just muddies the waters. What about people playing NPCs? What about other things in the scene? What about conflicts?

I think it would be best to divide this up:

Setting scenes (very very opening bit)
Playing out scenes (all the stuff that goes on in the middle)
Resolving scene (the conflict)
Concluding scenes (how to wrap up)

Cheers
Malcolm

Contested Ground Studios

That, my dear boy, is a very good observation.

The rules for actually playing the game are somewhat differently laid out. This is part of the gameplay overview section right near the start of the book. The idea if this is to say "You don't need to feel pressured into full on narration as if you're writing a book, doing abstracts of scenes is fine."

This is what comes of constant revisions. You start writing about one thing, change your idea of what you're writing and then don't re-check your text properly!

Basically, I'm not talking about setting scenes at all, I'm talking about narration style.

I think I need to subtly re-phrase it like this:

How Scenes are Played

When you're narrating a scene you narrate the opening of the scenes however you like. Some people like to narrate scenes in detail and others prefer to be more abstract, summarising their scenes.

For example, one player might narrate a scene like this:

I want a Practice Scene to raise my band’s Material. That costs two two Cash.

My band hides away in someone’s apartment and write some more songs.

While another might narrate the same scene like this:

It’s the inside of Jürgen’s apartment and there are empty beer bottles everywhere. Jacen and Jürgen are slouched in chairs, Jacen with a guitar and Jürgen with a harmonica in his mouth frantically scribbling notes in a spiral bound pad. Jürgen pauses to lift his beer and takes a gulp, not realising he still has his harmonica clamped between his lips. He releases a startled cough, burp and gasp followed by an unpleasant blast of gurgling harmonica notes and desperate wheezing until Jacen performs the Heimlich manoeuvre on him to dislodge the drowned instrument. Fortunately the lyrics to the new opus "My Sundered Terrier" are spared from the torrent. Thusly, Doom Cow’s Material score goes up from two the three, and they lose two Cash.

It’s important to note that both of these approaches are perfectly valid and neither is wrong. Different players and different groups feel more comfortable with different levels of detail in their narration. Your group and the players in it should find a level they are comfortable with and be safe in the knowledge that they are playing correctly. Only namby pamby "new age" bands worry about that sort of thing: True Metal is always played correctly.

The point is this: There's an assumption in a lot of indie games that players know exactly how to narrate a scene, that they know exactly what the author means by that. I've encountered a lot of players who've enjoyed the game but when it comes to narrating scenes felt very uncomfortable because they feel like they're supposed to come up with something off the cuff that sounds like the kind of detailed narrative you get in a novel. Which is, y'know, not true, you don't really have to do that. If you want to just speak a bit of quick abstract to the scene, go for it, that works!

Another thing I've noticed my group do which isn't in the rules yet and which I think needs to be: When it's not your turn, don't just sit there expecting the guy who's narrating at the moment to entertain you! Pitch in! Throw ideas around, song names, venues, stuff like that! This is another assumption which I think a lot of games make and which I think needs to be stated clearly.

One option I strongly recommend is avoiding the word narrate, use describe or some other variant.

Which gets me to my main point: in all texts about a process, say what you mean and mean what you say.

-Matt

Realms Publishing

See, that's one of those things:

"Of course I need to say narrate!"

*Thinks about it for a minute*

"No, actually I don't..."

Hmmm, I think the word Narrate is somewhat overused and not as useful as other words in this context.

I need to think about that quite a bit...

I'll have a think and add something more constructive later, but for now ...

"It’s important to note that both of these approaches are perfectly valid and neither is wrong."

Is a prime candidate for cutting. I think you're channelling your tech-doc side there. How about something more casual ...

"There's nothing wrong with either of the examples, so use whichever style you find most comfortable."

I'm going to contradict Matt here, sorry!

I think narrate works better than describe because describe to me sounds like the scene should be static, narrate is more dynamic.

Perhaps: Describe a scene and narrate what happens.

+++
JoE
+++

Prince of Darkness Games
Rock N' Role-Play....

Thanks for the input everyone!

Joe/Matt, I think the problem I was having is this: A lot of games use the term Narrate and I've kinda got used to it. But I have encountered from many people a mistaken belief that "you narrate the outcome" means that you must include a highly detailed, imaginative and eloquent description of everything which goes on in the scene, as if you're writing a novel on the fly.

Now, don't get me wrong, if everyone at the table can do that all the time, that's fantastic! But also very rare. Some people do that for everything including very trad games like D&D. Which (like I would have said in the 80s) is "well skill". But most players actually describe their character's actions in a much less detailed way while playing and their enjoyment doesn't suffer for it.

Lets say that a player wants their character to talk to an NPC called Clive the barman:

During a session of a trad game (say, I dunno, Vampire), typically you'll hear sentences like "I want to talk to Clive. I go to Clive's bar. Is he there?" from the player. Which is perfectly fine.

If you're running a game which includes any mention of "narration" in the text and the same circumstance comes up, what these players think is that they've got to come up with something off the cuff which sounds like they're reading from a novel. When really all they have to say is "I want to speak to Clive, I go over to his bar and beat the shit out of him until he talks."

The only real difference in a lot of games is who has the authority over the game world. In the trad game, the GM decides if Clive is there, if the player is strong enough to beat him up and if he talks. In the storygame (for want of a better term) the player has the authority to decide that, yes, Clive is there, Yes, they can beat him up and yes, he knows where the girl is hiding. No need to get into purple prose if you don't want to. No more difficult than what you'd say if you were playing Vampire or whatever, but a lot of people still get this wrong idea when they read or hear the word "Narration". That's what I'm trying to break down.

So, anyway, enough of that. I think that I don't need to avoid the word all together, but the meaning of what I'm talking about is clearer if I just say "Describe" rather than "Narrate" in a few places.

GO TEAM COLLECTIVE ENDEAVOUR!

Andrew, yeah, you're right of course. I really need to make this text less bland and more, I dunno, spicy. I guess I could live with someone saying "I read Umlaut and it's a pretty dry read. I understood the game though." although I'd rather they didn't. I can't really live with them saying "I read Umlaut and, fuck me, I have no idea what any of that was about!". Which was pretty much my reaction to reading Shock: and Capes.