Describing scenes

[amazinghat]

I think describing scenes is among the more difficult tasks a GM or DM has. This article is interesting and provides some insight into what makes good descriptors.

Otherwise, would any experienced storyteller here be willing to share tips?

[MerelyaSoul]

It is hard, you have to have an Idea or Image in your head. For example, a battlefield.

A garden of bodies, each cut up and stuck into arrows, lay undisturbed after the dust settled. Small streams of blood of both ally and enemy flow as a reminder of a cruel truth. Black shadows began to fly around as the corpses of the recent battle began to be picked. Cloaked figures start to defile the dead as greed or revenge motivate their dark acts.

or

A single wolf howls as the sound of metal clashing and horrible death screams faded. Where two armies once stood and fought, now lies the fallen corpses as those who survived began to gather. Several figures with hidden daggers began to defile the corpses for greed while others either of revenge or keeping their words do the same. Above dark shadows circle over ahead as the grim reminder of a vile truth.

[Kestrel]

Don't describe a setting:

If you've ever used a visual medium to tell a story, the golden rule is "show, don't tell" Now this gets a little more abstract if you are writing, but think of it like this; you are in SoulMaster's battlefield. Now you can write what SoulMaster did, but when I am reading this I think skipping it wouldn't affect my understanding of the plot or character. This means that for the most part, what SoulMaster has written here is fluff; which is unnecessary and can even be destructive. Your readers shouldn't be wasting their time.

You see, about that scene; I don't have to know how it looks like, I don't have to know what it feels like; as a reader I must create my own visions and feelings about the battlefield. Strike though the irrelevant info or things we can assume. Like; "On the ground were the soldiers who had fallen to the archers and cavalries." This explains the arrows and cuts and blood, without describing them. We can replace the second part with: "Crows and men came to skirmish their bodies." This gives the same information, using less words. The only thing that SoulMaster left vague were the crows, but that doesn't matter to the plot at all. It might just as well have been a desert battle and the crows then would have been vultures.

What this gets us is this; "On the ground were the soldiers who had fallen to the archers and cavalries. Crows and men came to skirmish their bodies."

Does that literally describe how it looked like? No. Can the reader fill in for their selves how it looked like? Yes. So it reaches the exact same effect as SoulMaster's description does, except it takes less time and makes reading a more active process.

The thing you must realise is that you're not writing poetry, but telling a story. You don't need the pretty words or drawn-out descriptions to set a scene. What matters are the events.

A bit more theory:

Do you know those times a person insults something on the interwebz? Have a long drawn-out post about how much stuff sucks? These people sound pissed, don't they? If their only adjective is 'fucking' many automatically assume they are trembling in rage behind their keyboards. Fact is though, most people are actually in a rather neutral state when typing anything. Annoyed, sure. But pissed off to a point they'd shout the words they type in your face? Rarely. But then why is it that we always think people are that pissed?

It is a trick our mind plays; because we relate words to experiences. Even though when not meant to illustrate an emotions, words can be very suggestive about them. Unwritten information makes up for a very large part of our interpretation of a text. In this sense, all you really need to do to evoke a feeling is to hint at something. You're in a forest. You hear owls, feel cold and can't see much; it's a forest at night. You're sweating, panicking, there are bright lights everywhere and you have trouble breathing; the forest is on fire.

When to use descriptions:

Not unlikely these two states of the forest contribute to the story. When you walk into a random house, description doesn't matter at all. Think like the character does. Is the description not only relevant, but also necessary for the story and/or character?

There are some exceptions in which detailed descriptions are fine. If a character is in awe over the beautiful architecture, he'd probably describe the details of that cathedral he's standing in "Oh my Katy, you should have been there! When I walked into the cathedral I could see *list of elements*" and when he returns and something has changed, he will only describe what has changed, because only that is relevant to him.

If your character happens to be a wildchild in the city for the first time, he'll have so many impressions he won't know what to do with them and in fact, will be making associations with things he know to let it all make sense for him; "The people had strange furs and colours, and everyone was really loud! There were spots in the rocks I could see through, but when I tried to climb in I could not get past them" I bet you realised the kid was describing clothes and windows.

But why can we have detailed descriptions here? It is because these descriptions do not just say something about the environment, but also about the character. The guy visiting the cathedral loves architecture and the wildchild is trying to make sense of what is around him (ie he is confused and/or curious about the big city)

How to substitute descriptions:

Now, on the other hand we have a guy named John. John walks into his home for the millionth time in his life; there is absolutely no need for him to describe anything and describing John's home will push the reader AWAY from John. This counter-acts immersion (something you want) and is bad. So instead of describing how incredible John's house is and having a page about his cars and painting collections, integrate these elements into the story instead. John's friend comes to visit and needs to park his car, John says "Put it between the Ferrari and the jeep." His friend asks "Where?" John gets a little annoyed and says "The 4th jeep from the left."

What do we know now? John has a lot of cars. Then we'll find out John's friend came by to see the newest (see what I did there?) Monet John bought at the auction last weekend and we'll be able to conclude John is an avid lover of paintings.

Do we need to describe any of this? Do we even need to say; "John has a lot of cars and loves paintings"? No, it is already obvious!

In conclusion:

Avoid spoon-feeding your readers and focus on the story-aspect rather than the image-aspect of writing. Avoid irrelevant information. Play something out if it is important, but don't describe it. In fact, never describe something for the sake of describing it. Always give your descriptions at least two purposes. Let your readers decide how a scene looks like for their selves; this makes reading more active and therefore engaging.

[amazinghat]

I enjoyed reading your post, Kestrel. It reminds me of one of George Orwell's essays on writing; he postulates something to a similar effect. Nevertheless, while this advice was undoubtedly helpful in my creative writing class last semester, the only kind of writing I do now is as a D&D dungeon master. DMing is not quite the same as GMing a roleplay. While the latter is story-focused, the former is action-focused. I find that in the former's case I would prefer to avoid all ambiguities and simply list the elements of the scene.

[Kestrel]

In that case, I suggest making your list as clear and concise as possible, so that people can start playing right away. The only goal here is to provide information, which I assume won't have to take you much more than a minute and generally people can pay attention for that long.

A quick map for reference is great if you want to be more strict on exact locations and distances. It doesn't have to look pretty, just clearly indicate the position of things. So if you have a pencil, ruler and a piece of paper that could help tons.

I'm not sure how it'll do for D&D, but this approach works well for acting exercises.

[mdk]

I enjoyed reading your post, Kestrel. It reminds me of one of George Orwell's essays on writing; he postulates something to a similar effect. Nevertheless, while this advice was undoubtedly helpful in my creative writing class last semester, the only kind of writing I do now is as a D&D dungeon master. DMing is not quite the same as GMing a roleplay. While the latter is story-focused, the former is action-focused. I find that in the former's case I would prefer to avoid all ambiguities and simply list the elements of the scene.

Chekov's Gun plays here.

Basically, if something is not going to be important, for christ's sake don't mention it in the least. Now bear in mind, this is coming from a guy who barely even RP's on account of his geeky-self-consciousness, let alone D&D's, so my opinion might not count for much. But if my career as a professional kung-fu movie watcher means anything, it's this: for every single object that a viewer/reader/participant notices, the author/director is making a promise that somebody will either karate-chop said item or do a backflip off of it. If it doesn't become an action prop, everybody is disappointed.

In other words, minimalism keeps you safe. Exposition leads you down a dark and dangerous path, and if you're not careful you'll have to roll a D20 to calculate your party's patience for your bullshit.


....that was a DnD joke.... did it land? Comments? Critiques?

[heyitspeter]

I think a good point to bring up here might be that description can be used in a multitude of ways, both indirectly and directly. (:

I enjoy using description in my writing but sliding it in creatively is the key to improving a piece from good to great. Some examples:

"Oh Kathrine! You've always been so messy. Your brother doesn't have nearly the same temper as you do, nor the fiery red hair to match!"

This type of dialogue helps develop the appearance of the character without directly stating: "She had fiery red hair." Besides, you develop the mother and also her temper without making more bland statements like, "Her mother yelled at her, insulting her temper and hair."

Clutching awkwardly at her clothes, her emerald eyes fell to the ground in panic, her steps fell quicker than they had before. Did he have to glare at her so menacingly? I've got to stop worrying about what he thinks. Even if he's a foot taller than me, staring me down with black eyes, and quite possibly thinking of killing me, what he thinks isn't really my concern so long as I leave him alone.

"Clutching awkwardly at her clothes," is a participle phrase (Both present and past participles can be used in phrases--called participial phrases--that modify nouns and pronouns.) and these can be really helpful when describing setting and actions. There was also the blunt statement of her "emerald eyes" which could always be spiced up with a cliche metaphor or simile. Another great way is through thoughts of your character towards the other, a great device that acts as dialogue and indirect, but can remain a very 'real' description. Though adds a voice to your own character while spicing up your post.

Lastly, don't forget the tense you're writing in. 90% the time we write in third person but use of dialogue and thought allow for more freedom. I'm no expert but those help me! (: