Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]. Nice tautological definitions there. Until such time as you’d care to plant the goal posts, this discussion regardless of how much blather you want to add, is pointless.

———
[MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] - I would tell such a new DM that there is no single most important thing but rather dming, like any creative exercise is a combination of multiple factors that need to be addressed.

Hussar said:

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]. Nice tautological definitions there. Until such time as you’d care to plant the goal posts, this discussion regardless of how much blather you want to add, is pointless.

Click to expand...

Well not for me. Just to point to two things that have come out of it: I've learned that your conception of what makes for good RPGing is quite different from mine. And I've discovered a surprising point of overlap between me and [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION].

Given what you prefer, I can see why you want well-written boxed text in modules.

hawkeyefan said:

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] I don’t necessarily agree with pemerton. I simply understand what he is saying.

I think RPGs can contain literary quality. They can important and meaningful...although it’s usually only so for a handful of people.

But that’s not really the point.

Let’s say a new GM came to you for advice, and said “gimme the ONE THING that I need to know about GMing a game” what would you offer?

Always narrate with a mind toward evocative language?

Always try to put the players’ characters into interesting situations where meaningful decisions are needed?

Always have pizza?

What would you tell this new GM?

Click to expand...

Just to continue on my last post.

An interesting situation delivered poorly will result in a bad game as the session stumbles along at a glacial pace because the GM fails to communicate the situation to the players.

OTOH a poorly thought out situation where the players have no stake in the outcome probably won’t be saved by good presentation.

So at the end of the day, you are asking for a simplification to a complex act that cannot be reduced down to a single point.

I've been reading Vincent Baker's Apocalypse World rulebook over the past week or so, and noticed this. I didn't have it in mind when I started this thread, and as far as I remember I hadn't yet read it when I started this thread. But I've owned Apocalypse World for a while now and have skimmed the rulebook in the past, so maybe I have seen this and it was lurking somewhere in the back of my mind.

Anyway, from p 11 of the AW book under the heading "The Conversation":


To me, that seems a pretty good description of what RPGing is. It's communicative. It's imaginative. It's mediated by a rules structure. But it's not about producing nice performances or saying things well. This is one reason why people who are terrible writers and pretty mediocre speakers (and I've gamed with such people) can be great roleplayers.

And between writing this post and getting a chance to actually post it, I noticed this further bit a few pages later. On pp 16-17, Baker answers the question "Why to play":


I think it's not mere coincidence that all those reasons go to protagonisim and situation, and none of them speaks to the aesthetic qualities of the conversation as such. There's no suggestion that one reason to play is because your friends will entertain you with the quality of their performances.

Hussar said:

An interesting situation delivered poorly will result in a bad game as the session stumbles along at a glacial pace because the GM fails to communicate the situation to the players.
.

Click to expand...

I think this is the part a lot of us disagree with. Obviously at a certain point, it may start to impact play for us. But the whole point of emphasizing conversational GMing is that it is a bit expected players may want or need to ask for clarifications. We are fine with the 'flow' being disrupted because it is a back and forth conversation to help establish things. From my viewpoint, how the GM delivers information is much less important than what that information is. And the issue you raise here isn't really about quality, it doesn't matter in this moment if the GM describes it evocatively. Your point is really more about clarity (does the GM describe it clearly). That can definitely matter, but it isn't going to make the session bad in my view as long as I can gain clarity by asking questions.

Aldarc said:

Yes, because the question was beside the point.

Click to expand...

You don't know what his point was. You shouldn't assume things.

Maxperson said:

You don't know what his point was. You shouldn't assume things.

Click to expand...

His question was beside the point that I was making/discussing. Answering either 'yes' or 'no' to that question was irrelevant to that point.

Maxperson said:

Concern in that I assume the DM doesn't want to give boring descriptions and drive away his players. I don't actually sit and think about using this word over that one, but neither do I say, "You see a room." and leave it at that.

Click to expand...

Who's advocated for such limited description? No one. [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] says that he prefers conversational language rather than trying to create evocative, literary minded narration. I don't think that means that description is absent....do you? When people have a conversation, are they somehow incapable of describing things?

Must you make a strong effort to evoke mood and theme in order to simply describe a room?

Maxperson said:

I've already answered that. It's not a major focus, but it can't be non-existent, either. Giving better descriptions than, "You see a room." is the standard of game play. At least in every RPG I've ever played in. Not everyone was equal in their ability to describe things, but they all made the attempt to at least tell the players what the PCs are looking at.

Click to expand...

No one here has said they don't describe things.

There's a scale when it comes to the literary quality. For some GMs, they want to hit the high end of the scale. Others may be at the low end. Most are likely somewhere in between. If someone says that this is not their main focus when it comes to RPGs, that doesn't mean that they can't still be well within what is acceptable on that scale.

Would you agree with this?

Maxperson said:

No, because it's not a dichotomy. It's not a matter of boring or primary focus.

Click to expand...

You are promoting the dichotomy. When anyone has said that they place more focus on a game element over the quality of narration, you then insist that their narration must be limited to boring and limited statements.

It would be equally unfair of me to assume that your opinion that narration is of utmost importance means that your content is boring and drab. I could reply to you with "Use all the evocative language you want, but it's still just two orcs sitting at a table in front of a door....wow, exciting."

If you actually believe that it's not a dichotomy, then stop insisting that the quality of narration will be boring if not the primary focus.

Maxperson said:

I haven't implied that.

Click to expand...

It certainly seems that way.

Hussar said:

Just to continue on my last post.

An interesting situation delivered poorly will result in a bad game as the session stumbles along at a glacial pace because the GM fails to communicate the situation to the players.

OTOH a poorly thought out situation where the players have no stake in the outcome probably won’t be saved by good presentation.

So at the end of the day, you are asking for a simplification to a complex act that cannot be reduced down to a single point.

Click to expand...

"Poorly" is where I get confused. Who wants poor delivery by the GM? People have said that the quality of the GM's delivery is not the most important thing to them....but that doesn't mean they want or expect crap delivery.

As an advocate of quality narration, and use of evocative language and/or literary techniques to strengthen your game, does that mean that you expect your content to be bland and meaningless?

I don't think anyone is denying that good GMing, or roleplaying in general, is the result of many factors. I think we all know this. However, among those many factors, we each place importance or focus on some more than others. In [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s case, he considers the fictional situation to be of primary importance....he wants the players to feel pressure to act based on the content.

I don't think this is an attempt on his part to simplify RPGing so much as it's just him stating his preference. No more than if I said the most important part of a car is an engine it doesn't mean that I don't recognize the importance of the wheels.

Aldarc said:

Yes, because the question was beside the point.

Click to expand...

No the question was pretty much on track for the thread but I respect your desire not to answer it.