Is RPGing a literary endeavour?

Imaro · May 18, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
I think we are confusing things because we are talking about abstract general concepts and using them as proxies to fight over specifics. What I am pushing back against is the idea put out there that GMs should engage in a style of narration that is flavorful and literary in nature. I much prefer a more conversational style that isn't consciously performative. That doesn't mean I list off bullet points. It means I am fairly concise, not particularly emotive like an actor would be, and that I am talking to my players like I talk to my friends. I see it much more as a conversation like Permerton does. The impression I am getting from posters like Hussar is they value things like the GM speaking in voices, using evocative words to paint a picture and atmosphere, etc. I am not into that as a player or as a GM. I will give a brief description of what is there, then say "What do you want to do". If an NPC is talking, I speak as the character. But I am not shifting voices or performing.

But this is arguing over degrees... the point is it's still there even in your gameplay example above when you speak as the NPC... you're literally just saying you only want X amount while [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] wants Y amount which is fine, but it's still there in both games which is why I feel it is core. Unless you can totally excise something out without loosing quality in your gameplay... I feel it is core.

Bedrockgames said:
I would say my style is laid back and it isn't too concerned about peoples' performances. My main interest is whether I am having fun and people are engaged with what is going on in the game. I am what I call a 'roll off the couch and play GM'. I don't look at each session as a big production. It is just a game session and I keep my expectations as both a player and a GM fairly realistic and appropriate to that. One of my pet peeves as a player is other players who are overly critical or have super high expectations of play. I just don't like this idea of judging other peoples performance at the table like that. I am not there to be awed by your dwarven accent.

We aren't talking about judging anything... performance & presentation in and of itself is subjective. My only point is that it is core to the game, even if only done minimally it is still done by the majority if not all groups.

Bedrockgames said:
I have podcast recordings of my sessions. I would be happy to share them with you or with Pemerton by PM. But I would honestly rather not post them here given the level of heat that has arisen in this discussion.

That's cool if you feel like sharing I'd be interested in listening to them but I feel like I couldn't really discuss them here so there may not be a point at least as far as this thread is concerned.

Bedrockgames · May 18, 2019

Imaro said:
We aren't talking about judging anything... performance & presentation in and of itself is subjective. My only point is that it is core to the game, even if only done minimally it is still done by the majority if not all groups.

.

Hussar most definitely was talking about judging performances and that is largely where my disagreement centered. Again, I get what you saying here, but I don't see how something that can be so minimal would be regarded as core or essential. Particularly with performance. I think that word in particular is very counter to how I see running and playing. Like we said before in this discussion there is a big difference between performing your character and naturally playing your character. In terms of presentation. Well technically I could argue presentation is present in everything. That doesn't make it a core feature of everything. Especially since neither presentation nor performance are things that set RPGs apart from other things.

Imaro · May 18, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
Hussar most definitely was talking about judging performances and that is largely where my disagreement centered. Again, I get what you saying here, but I don't see how something that can be so minimal would be regarded as core or essential. Particularly with performance. I think that word in particular is very counter to how I see running and playing. Like we said before in this discussion there is a big difference between performing your character and naturally playing your character. In terms of presentation. Well technically I could argue presentation is present in everything. That doesn't make it a core feature of everything. Especially since neither presentation nor performance are things that set RPGs apart from other things.

Yes but then neither is interacting with a situation...or content for that matter.

EDIT: Actually the GM (a single player) performing as different characters within the context of playing a game is kind of unique to D&D... though admittedly I could be mistaken if you have any examples outside roleplaying games I'd be happy to hear them.

Hriston · May 18, 2019

Imaro said:
Disagree... otherwise the most bland & basic description of content would engender the same response as a better embellished and constructed description of the same content... and IME most of the time that just isn't the case.

All things being equal, there’s nothing wrong with well crafted narration. That’s not the point. The point is rpg groups don’t get together to listen to flowery descriptions of the contents of rooms. That’s what poetry recitals are for. They get together to engage, as their characters, with the situations presented in the game. Any literary quality possessed by that presentation is in service and subordinate to those situations.

Imaro · May 18, 2019

Hriston said:
All things being equal, there’s nothing wrong with well crafted narration. That’s not the point. The point is rpg groups don’t get together to listen to flowery descriptions of the contents of rooms. That’s what poetry recitals are for. They get together to engage, as their characters, with the situations presented in the game. Any literary quality possessed by that presentation is in service and subordinate to those situations.

This doesn't speak to whether it is a core aspect of the game or not. If the group isn't interested in engaging with the situations presented because your presentation/performance doesn't make it interesting to them... well there's no game. It's an ingredient of the whole just like everything else. Are eggs or milk not a core ingredient for a cake because you aren't eating the cake to experience drinking milk or eating an egg?

hawkeyefan · May 18, 2019

Imaro said:
This is another point I feel is being glossed over... If you are embellishing it yourself, adding description, writing up a description, etc... then it still seems to reason that the presentation and the quality of said presentation is core (and if it's not why bother creating it??). Otherwise one could just read off the bullet points since they are the most succinct and easiest way to relay the content. IMO this is like claiming content isn't core because you create your own. Doesn't matter who creates it for the game, it's a core part of playing the game.

The presentation is important, of course. Can’t have a game without it. The literary quality of that presentation is another matter. It’ll matter quite a bit to some, and only a little to others.

Personally, I can see both sides of the discussion. I can understand someone wanting clear and concise description only from the GM so that they as a player can decide what they want their character to do.

On the other hand, I can understand a GM who wants to infuse some mood into the scene, and I can understand players who prefer such narration in order to help them feel in character.

I don’t see it as any different from liking the writing style of someone like Patrick Rothfuss versus that of someone like Richard Stark (aka Donald Westlake). One is descriptive and poetic, almost lyrical at times. The other is like a punch to the gut.

There’s a place for both in most games, probably, but each group will have their preference. For me, I think it’s best to vary it up depending on the specific scene and what you hope to get out of it.

I don’t agree that RPGs cannot have a literary approach, but nor do I agree that anyone who’s not totally focused on performance is simply “roll-playing”.

Hussar · May 18, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
I don't play 5E, and the reason why is I am put off by the production values and the density of flavor content. I get that it appeals to a lot of people. That stuff is important in terms of reaching an audience and marketing. /snip

Considering that 5e now dominates the market, online play at least shows almost 70% of all RPG sessions are 5e, and 5e is selling in droves, would you care to restate your point that "lots of people" think like me that you've made a few times in the last few pages?

Brushing it off as "marketing" seems a bit self serving no? You don't care for it, so, it's just marketing, and not core to an RPG. OTOH, I'd argue that the, by far and away, most popular RPG's EVER have deeply relied on presentation - all the way from Dragonlance and the unbelievable production values of the time, to modern AP's like Pathfinder and 5e - have all had presentation as a core value of the game. Never minding a fair library of DM/GM advice over the years that does focus fairly strongly on presentation, or, as we're using it in this thread, the literary.

Bedrockgames · May 19, 2019

Hussar said:
Considering that 5e now dominates the market, online play at least shows almost 70% of all RPG sessions are 5e, and 5e is selling in droves, would you care to restate your point that "lots of people" think like me that you've made a few times in the last few pages?

Brushing it off as "marketing" seems a bit self serving no? You don't care for it, so, it's just marketing, and not core to an RPG. OTOH, I'd argue that the, by far and away, most popular RPG's EVER have deeply relied on presentation - all the way from Dragonlance and the unbelievable production values of the time, to modern AP's like Pathfinder and 5e - have all had presentation as a core value of the game. Never minding a fair library of DM/GM advice over the years that does focus fairly strongly on presentation, or, as we're using it in this thread, the literary.

No. I never said a majority of gamers think like me. But just because something is popular or fashionable, doesn’t make it core or essential to the medium. And we don’t know how much that accounts for it’s success. There are lots of other things people like about 5e

Bedrockgames · May 19, 2019

Hussar said:
Brushing it off as "marketing" seems a bit self serving no? You don't care for it, so, it's just marketing, and not core to an RPG. OTOH, I'd argue that the, by far and away, most popular RPG's EVER have deeply relied on presentation - all the way from Dragonlance and the unbelievable production values of the time, to modern AP's like Pathfinder and 5e - have all had presentation as a core value of the game. Never minding a fair library of DM/GM advice over the years that does focus fairly strongly on presentation, or, as we're using it in this thread, the literary.

D&D’s popularity didn’t begin with Dragonlance. Sure adventure paths are popular. But that doesn’t make them essential features or core parts of the RPG experience. Adventure paths are not required in the least

Imaro · May 19, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
D&D’s popularity didn’t begin with Dragonlance. Sure adventure paths are popular. But that doesn’t make them essential features or core parts of the RPG experience. Adventure paths are not required in the least

Okay question... what is IYO..."required" for the rpg experience? I'd also be curious to hear (because its come up a few times before and has been tied to core experience) what do you believe is unique to the rpg experience?