Is RPGing a literary endeavour?

lowkey13 · May 20, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Hussar · May 20, 2019

On the 13 kobolds on a hill.

Ok. It’s conversation. Player asks, “What do they look like?” Fairly reasonable question. Particularly if you trade kobolds for something new that the player has never seen before.

Now describe your 13 kobolds without being literary. Do you really just say three foot tall dog men? Oh wait, wrong edition. Three foot tall lizard dudes armed with spears? That’s clear but hardly what I’d call good dming.

Better yet. You see a Vengaurak on the hill. What do you do?

dostami · May 20, 2019

Ralif Redhammer said:
Going with one of the OED's definitions of literary:

"Concerned with depicting or representing a story or other literary work; that refers or relates to a text; that creates a complex or finely crafted narrative like that of a work of literature."

Gaming can be literary, based on that particular definition. We draw influences from a variety of sources, after all. Two of the published AD&D modules are inspired by the works of Lewis Carroll. Many years ago, I ran a campaign that was pretty much Hamlet. Not in quality, mind you, I'd never go that far. But the plot was directly taken from Hamlet, albeit with an evil wizard and whatnot.

And we can absolutely have a "finely crafted narrative" in gaming. The difference is that that narrative creates itself collaboratively, as we play, rather than being written out.

I absolutely agree with this! As a writer and a long time game master or Dungeon Master as it was once called, I can tell you it makes all difference in the world in the gamer's experience and causes them to remember the game more so. My team of players have been with me for over thirty years and that is because when I create a game and add those finer details that make them want to play more. Games without good story are not for me. Its all about the story.

Bedrockgames · May 21, 2019

lowkey13 said:
I didn't have to mine your posts, man. I have a memory- it's not like it's hard to remember the last time this happened (thread was pulled out, etc.).

It's unfortunate that you don't see the irony in your post, perhaps next time it will be your ox (again).

Anyway, I am done. Please do not respond again.

I feel I should respond to defend myself. I can understand you think I am wrong about Pemerton in this instance. It is possible I am. What bothers me is questioning my sincerity: assuming I felt one way because he disagreed with me, then another when we were in agreement. What also bothers me is the level of hostility I am getting hit dimply thinking he is making a sensible point.

EDIT: also I wasn’t happy with my own behavior in the thread in question.

Bedrockgames · May 21, 2019

Hussar said:
On the 13 kobolds on a hill.

Ok. It’s conversation. Player asks, “What do they look like?” Fairly reasonable question. Particularly if you trade kobolds for something new that the player has never seen before.

Now describe your 13 kobolds without being literary. Do you really just say three foot tall dog men? Oh wait, wrong edition. Three foot tall lizard dudes armed with spears? That’s clear but hardly what I’d call good dming.

Better yet. You see a Vengaurak on the hill. What do you do?

Again you want more literary description than I do. Or st least more description in the style of a novel. Three foot dog men is fine by me provided there isn’t any pertinent and significant content being left out. Describing the drip of saliva or the aroma of their soiled clothes, doesn’t really add a whole lot for me unless it is relevant or part of the questions and answers. This is my issue: you assume your standard of good GMing is the the standard. It is a lot more complex and nuanced than that.

Bedrockgames · May 21, 2019

Also to those getting angry, please consider that at the very worst you are getting angry because people are asserting descriptions are not all that important to them in an RPG. Even if they are wrong, just being stubborn and closed minded, this is a fairly narrow slice of life to get heated over. Even within gaming it is a fairly specific thing to get emotional about.

Imaro · May 21, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
Also to those getting angry, please consider that at the very worst you are getting angry because people are asserting descriptions are not all that important to them in an RPG. Even if they are wrong, just being stubborn and closed minded, this is a fairly narrow slice of life to get heated over. Even within gaming it is a fairly specific thing to get emotional about.

I think you're reading or projecting too much into these replies.

Bedrockgames · May 21, 2019

Imaro said:
I think you're reading or projecting too much into these replies.

I would suggest reading through those replies again

Maxperson · May 21, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
No, that isn’t literary. Hack novels use descriptions. Doesn’t make them literary novels.

Yes it does. You can in fact have poor literature.

[quote And further when the focus isn’t on higher quality narration, a higher purpose or using a plethora or literary techniques to make it feel ‘literary’, it is not literary.[/quote]

This is wrong. All it takes to be literary is to have something written.

lit·er·ar·y
/ˈlidəˌrerē/
adjective
adjective: literary
1.
concerning the writing, study, or content of literature, especially of the kind valued for quality of form.

lit·er·a·ture
/ˈlidərəCHər,ˈlidərəˌCHo͝or/
noun
written works, especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit.

What you guys seem to be missing is the word "especially." While artistic and merit are prized, they are not required for something to be literature or literary. A grocery list is written work for God's sake. Unless you are running your games with nobody writing anything down, you are using literature and your game has literary aspects.

Again like so many play style arguments based on definitions here people are advancing a broad definition of literary so they can equivocate and advance a playstyle position.

The OP engages in the opposite tactic. He re-defines or attempts to eliminate certain definitions in order to advance his playstyle or put down a playstyle he dislikes. He gets lots of push back over it.

The argument presents broad definitions of literary in order to claim RPGs are literary but then end up advocating for more narrow definitions of literary when it gets into what RPGs should do and how they should be written.

I have't seen the last part of that here. I've yet to see someone try to push the One True Way over RPGs containing literary portions.

You can’t say RPGs are literary because words are involved therefore they should have the hallmarks of good literature.

This is a Strawman. Nobody is claiming literature has to be good, other than people on your side anyway. RPGs are literary because they contain written works. RPGs are literary, because most, if not all people who run them try to make descriptions more interesting than, "In the room are 2 orcs," which is an attempt at higher quality literature.

Maxperson · May 21, 2019

Hriston said:
From this, it seems that what you and @Maxperson mean by presenting a situation well enough is that the situation is described. I agree that description is necessary, but I fail to see how merely describing a situation makes the formal qualities of that description the focus of the activity.

Quality of the descriptions doesn't have to be THE focus. There probably isn't even a single focus of the game. However, I have yet to play with someone who gives bare bones descriptions such as, "In the room are 2 orcs." They generally add at least a little bit to the descriptions to make them more interesting, and that is the DM attempting to add quality to the narration.