The objection has been to the OP basically claiming color is not in fact a core (distinct??? this isn't really clear either IMO) component of roleplaying games
That's actually not what the OP says.
Colour, obviously, is fundamental to heaps of RPGing. (Maybe not some classic dungeoncrawling.) I don't think the word "colour" appears in the OP. The OP does say
RPGing requires narration: GMs describe situations - that narration and description will involve colour.
My claim is about the focus of, and foundation of, emotional engagement in RPGing. As the OP says,
What matters to me is that the players feel the significance of the situations the GM describes - that they feel the pull to action, and the threats of inaction. That is, that the situation engage and motivate the players as players, not as an audience to a performance.
Doesn't that depend on what the letter is about? And if that impedes clarity... how can you not worry about those things?
I don't know where you see
clarity coming from in this discussion.
It's helpful if - say - stereo installation instructions are clear, but that doesn't show that writing such instructions is a
literary endeavour.
RPGing involves communication. Communication can be facilitated by clarity. (Though it's a threshold issue, not "the more the better", which already shows us the difference from literary quality.) This doesn't show that RPGing is
literary or oriented towards
performance.
regardless of the way it is framed (which has changed multiple times), he does not believe that emotional engagement can or should be evoked by player or DM narration of any kind
This is obviously false, given the following from the OP:
RPGing requires narration: GMs describe situations, and players declare actions for their PCs that respond to those situations. But I don't think the literary quality of that narration is important.
What matters to me is that the players feel the significance of the situations the GM describes - that they feel the pull to action, and the threats of inaction. That is, that the situation engage and motivate the players as players, not as an audience to a performance.
There are different ways of evoking emotion by saying things to people. The formal aesthetic qualities of what is said and how it is said (metre and cadence, rhyme, alliteration, precise word choice and word contrast, modulation of tone and volume, etc) is one way. Acting and recitation depend on these devices. When I give a lecture, these are important things.
Another way to evoke emotion by saying things is to
say things that hook onto what the interlocutor cares about. This typically does not depend upon those formal aesthetic qualities - one can, for instance, pause and reframe; hesitate, inviting some request for direction or clarifiation from the interlocutor; allow volume and tone to
follow emotion rather than lead it.
I'm expressing a view about which RPGing is more like.
[MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] and I disagree on many things about RPGing. But having read Bedrockgames's posts to this thread, I think he understands what I am saying and largely agrees. Oddly enough that happens sometimes!
And on that topic:
I certainly don't mind being entertained by others, I just don't see it as why I am there to game. I am there for the immersive experience and for the interaction with my friends. If I viewed it as them being there to entertain me, it just feels strange. Doesn't mean the session isn't lively, people don't talk in character, or that people don't make one another laugh (they frequently do). It just isn't consciously performative.
This is true for me also.