Dear Players, Description is not Fluff, it's Meat.

JOESKY'S TAX - Unused, Labelled Hexmap (key it with whatever)

 

By fluff I mean colour for its own sake, flourish, like describing how you buy a piece of property in monopoly or, I would argue, narrating any use of a skill or ability in a game relying on prescriptive systems (roll d20, add your STAT and SKILL, beat TARGET to succeed ; all of the parts in ALL CAPS are established prior to running the game by the ruleset, so that whether you smooth-talk the captain of the guards or threaten him, if both are covered by the same stat & skill, it's only fluff/colour).

By meat I mean what trad/modern schools think of as "crunch", except it's not about the mechanical parts of the game, it's about the conversation. The solid, essential part of the conversation which we call playing the game. Sure, tabletop gaming is a social activity, and the general discussions that happen around a table of friends gathering together is important as part of that, but it is not important to the game being played itself. And in, say, 3.X, a LOT of the conversation that isn't about mechanics is really just fluff.

In FKR games, because the conversatin is the game*, with the Ref acting as the interface through which Players interact with the game world, description of action is not just set dressing and fluff, it does not just add to the experience as an added bonus, it is the necessary moving part that keeps the ball rolling. I'm not saying descriptions of absolutely everything, nor do I mean adding superlatives everywhere or trying to narrate a novel. I'm talking rather about how Refs will be forced to constantly and consistently describe the state of the world as it is to the players in plain language given that we want them to think about the world [that part I think is fairly obvious at this point to anyone who's reading this blog], but something that's been irking me recently and I think has been hard to come around for me as I was not sure how to frame it in a way that didn't sound too "onetruescots" or betray the aim for accessibility that I think is super important when running game:

Players need to describe actions, especially outside of key actionable moments that we expect to roll for.

A) I attack the goblin
May be fine depending on how much of a threat one city guard is to you, but if you can't just say "I kill the city guard" in that setting of play, I think it probably means it's unclear whether you are able to or not, which means you should say what you're trying to do clearly, intent, method, etc. Does not require deep knowledge of combat, may include a back and forth of clarification on the situation (high trust, remember?), but do requires at the very least: "I try to wound the city guard with my dagger" and this is being lazy. "I draw my dagger and lash out at the city guard to keep him from grabbing me" is what we actually need. See how I'm not being flowery, but being clear and precise in my intent and method? That gives the GM the tools she needs to interpret the situation, and it solidifies the PC's presence in the game world.

B) I open the door | I sit at a table at the tavern
Pixelbitching is boring, yes, but it doesn't cost you much energy to make that statement say someething about your intent or reinforce the game world. If it's a regular door and it only matters as a transition point between one place and another and you're aware of it, like you're looking at an appartment door that you have the key for, describe the actionable moment: "I try the lock, fumbling in my pocket for the key, if it doesn't open, I use that" or "I peek through the door trying to open it as quietly as possible and looking inside for signs of someone, I think there's been a break-in".

C) I ask the NPC a few questions [questions]
Perfectly fine in my book, I'm not saying speak in 1st person or act, I'm a terrible actor myself and am not playing for that. Although it is 100% better to state what the questions are clearly rather than, say, "I ask the NPC about the Victim". And unless you've already confirmed they are ready to tell you all they know, also state how you expect them to give you that info. I think it's kind of how Matrix Games ask you to state what you aim to accomplish and why you think it'll work? Do that. Do that all the time now.

Doing these things saves the GM the trouble of asking "ok, how do you do it?", reinforces the character's place in the game world, is more immersive for everyone involved, tells us about the character and/or the game world, and helps the GM make rulings about the situation without "giving away" more than is needed to have a smooth-sailing, fluid experience.

* : I know it's the case for all adventure games and trad tabletop RPGs, the fact that this "core principle of what an adventure game is" and "core principle of FKR" overlap is part of why some people find it tricky to understand what's particular about FKR, and also because as I've pointed out multiple times in the past, this general understanding of what the game be about is, AFAIK, how the game was understood in the first place. See classic traveller for very clear and dry language explaining what trpgs and are and how they're supposed to be played [at the times] and you get a clear description of how to use the FKR framework.