Ahh, ok, so, we're at the "literary=Shakespeare" end of the spectrum. Ok, fair enoguh. As I said, I agree with you, if that's the definition of literary you want to work with.
For what it's worth, my sense is that you don't agree!
I think you've appreciated that, in the OP, I said that RPGing requires narration and description. And as I've read your posts, I think you are saying that that narration/description should aim, or be conditioned with an eye towards, formal quality.
Even if I've misunderstood you in that respect, I think there are people in the RPG sphere who do take that view.
Or in other words, I think there's a real discussion here as opposed to debating about where to draw the line on what counts as well-written work.
And speaking of pointless debates . . .
Literary doesn't require those standards of excellence. Any old piece of junk sentence is also literary.
Maxperson, here is
the OED definition of "literary":
1.Concerning the writing, study, or content of literature, especially of the kind valued for quality of form.
2. (of language) associated with literary works or other formal writing; having a marked style intended to create a particular emotional effect.
Here are some of the examples of usage given for definition 1:
‘I do not object to this accolade on the grounds that Edinburgh has little literary tradition.’
‘There is an acknowledged double standard in how we view a prolific genre writer and a fruitful literary author.’
‘The novel also proves that literary fiction doesn't have to be elegiac in tone to be successful.’
I only quote these to make the point - obvious I think to everyone in this thread except apparently you - that there is a usage of
literary in which not all communicative acts, not all uses of words, constitute literary works. That is the usage that occurs in the OP of this thread, which asserts that the narration and description in an RPG performs its function largely independently of its literary quality.