Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

[Sadras]

Some would say the last game of thrones season was not a literary endeavour.

 

[Imaro]

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?



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?

so where is the line? At what point do you cross from regular description/presentation/performance into whatever it is [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is talking about?

 

[Imaro]

"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.

Then he really shouldn't have proclaimed it as not core... I think that ill choice of wording is to blame for alot of the back and forth. You make a statement like that and you're not stating preference, you are trying to define.

 

[Hriston]

Important. Unimportant. Those things are not relevant to whether or not the game is literary. It is, and the conversational dialogue, along with the quality of it is part of why.

RPGing being a literary endeavor would suggest that the literary quality of the narration is an important part of the activity. Wouldn't it?

 

[Aldarc]

Do you think using at least some of these techniques* is core to running a game?

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

Okay. This was not a strand of discussion that I was engaging with my post but I will answer your question with earnest.

* Here I take "some of these techniques" to refer to some of the things that I had listed: literary storytelling, cinematic storytelling, history, psychological therapy, etc.

I'm not sure if using some of these techniques are core to running a game. When I look at early D&D, for example, these things do not really seem all that prevalent at all. The dungeon crawl is often regarded as the quintessential TTRPG experience (at least per its most popular system: i.e., D&D), but that mode has minimal integration of these techniques (apart from the historical veneer of Euro-medieval aesthetics). It's more of a puzzle game than narrative storytelling. And this is something even that the OSR movement has lifted up and run with as a lauded feature of "old school" TTRPGs. It's part of the talking OSR points about "challenging the player and not the character." It's behind the repeated mantra of D&D being about "killing monsters and looting their stuff." This is not to say that you can't use some of these techniques in your game or can't have them inform your storytelling or play preferences; however, I don't necessarily think that these are inherently core to running a TTRPG game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

so where is the line? At what point do you cross from regular description/presentation/performance into whatever it is [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is talking about?

Well it's different for everyone, I would think. Would you agree that it's a scale?

Personally, I like to use evocative description when it's called for. Usually at the start of a new scene....I'll deliver a few lines to try and set the scene. If there's a particular mood I'm going for, I'll try and tailor what I'm saying to reinforce that mood.

But this isn't something I always do. Sometimes, I'll just go with basic description in order to make sure things are clear. Sometimes, I don't want to convey a specific mood right away. It really varies a lot for me.

I'm also in no way against leaning on visual media when it helps. Describing whatever creature [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] mentioned a few pages ago as the bug at the end of Men in Black works for me. I usually provide an actor in association with my important NPCs to help my players picture what I'm going for. To my mind, that's not a literary technique by any reasonable stretch....it facilitates understanding at the table to say "the captain of the guard is a bit of a brutish man, like Herc from the Wire". But if I was writing fiction, I'd never do that.

So for me, sure, sometimes my word choice is meant to be evocative in the same way an author of literature woudl attempt to be evocative. But other times, I just want to facilitate play by making sure my players understand the situation and the scene.

So in that sense, the importance of using evocative language is simply not as important to me as the situation itself.

Then he really shouldn't have proclaimed it as not core... I think that ill choice of wording is to blame for alot of the back and forth. You make a statement like that and you're not stating preference, you are trying to define.

Perhaps. To me, I don't know if it is core. I would agree that a certain level of description and clarity is required. So if we apply "literary" as broad as some have in this thread, then I suppose it would be core because the GM has to set a scene, as basic as he may do so.

But if we focus more on the level of the quality of language used by the GM....if we narrow the definition of "literary" a bit to what most people tend to think of.....then I don't know if evocative language is absolutely necessary. I think a game could work without it.

However, I wouldn't cut it out of my own game. I think it certainly adds to the game, and like I said, I include it where I think it helps. All other things being equal, a game that has evocative narration versus on that lacks it would be better, in my opinion.

If you asked me (as this thread tried to) if I think that use of evocative narration is more or less important than creating interesting situations for the characters, then that's something else. Of course these things are not mutually exclusive, but if we're talking about which is more fundamental to the success of a game, then I'd say that interesting situations are more important. I just see this as more important because it's going to be what truly engages the players, and anything else is kind of icing on the cake, so to speak.

I'm sure some folks would say that it's the narrative quality that's more important. If you think that, I'd be interested to hear why in a way that doesn't assume that a game where it isn't the primary focus is drab and uninteresting.

What makes evocative language so important to the game? What does it add? When compared to interesting situations, how is it more important?

 

[Maxperson]

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?

None of that is required for the content to be literary. Conversational dialogue(simply being a conversation) is a literary technique. What he does is literary, as is what I do, and what you do, and what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] does, and...

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.

I agree. The scale is from a grocery list to Shakespeare. It's all literary is my point.

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.

LOL No. I'm saying it's all literary. They're saying it's not literary unless it's an attempt to be Shakespeare or similar quality.

 

[Maxperson]

RPGing being a literary endeavor would suggest that the literary quality of the narration is an important part of the activity. Wouldn't it?

Insofar as the activity couldn't happen without it, being literary is a very important part of the activity. It doesn't require a conscious attempt on the part of the DM or players for it to be that way.

 

[Maxperson]

so where is the line? At what point do you cross from regular description/presentation/performance into whatever it is [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is talking about?

Where it crosses from normal literary description/presentation/performance into the high quality literary versions [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is talking about will vary from person to person. This whole debate could have been avoided if he had just described it as high quality literary, rather than just literary. Had he specified the subset, rather than the entire set, I would have agreed with him that no, the game doesn't attempt to be the quality of Shakespeare.

 

[Imaro]

Well it's different for everyone, I would think. Would you agree that it's a scale?

Personally, I like to use evocative description when it's called for. Usually at the start of a new scene....I'll deliver a few lines to try and set the scene. If there's a particular mood I'm going for, I'll try and tailor what I'm saying to reinforce that mood.

But this isn't something I always do. Sometimes, I'll just go with basic description in order to make sure things are clear. Sometimes, I don't want to convey a specific mood right away. It really varies a lot for me.

I'm also in no way against leaning on visual media when it helps. Describing whatever creature @Hussar mentioned a few pages ago as the bug at the end of Men in Black works for me. I usually provide an actor in association with my important NPCs to help my players picture what I'm going for. To my mind, that's not a literary technique by any reasonable stretch....it facilitates understanding at the table to say "the captain of the guard is a bit of a brutish man, like Herc from the Wire". But if I was writing fiction, I'd never do that.

So for me, sure, sometimes my word choice is meant to be evocative in the same way an author of literature woudl attempt to be evocative. But other times, I just want to facilitate play by making sure my players understand the situation and the scene.

So in that sense, the importance of using evocative language is simply not as important to me as the situation itself.



Perhaps. To me, I don't know if it is core. I would agree that a certain level of description and clarity is required. So if we apply "literary" as broad as some have in this thread, then I suppose it would be core because the GM has to set a scene, as basic as he may do so.

But if we focus more on the level of the quality of language used by the GM....if we narrow the definition of "literary" a bit to what most people tend to think of.....then I don't know if evocative language is absolutely necessary. I think a game could work without it.

However, I wouldn't cut it out of my own game. I think it certainly adds to the game, and like I said, I include it where I think it helps. All other things being equal, a game that has evocative narration versus on that lacks it would be better, in my opinion.

If you asked me (as this thread tried to) if I think that use of evocative narration is more or less important than creating interesting situations for the characters, then that's something else. Of course these things are not mutually exclusive, but if we're talking about which is more fundamental to the success of a game, then I'd say that interesting situations are more important. I just see this as more important because it's going to be what truly engages the players, and anything else is kind of icing on the cake, so to speak.

I'm sure some folks would say that it's the narrative quality that's more important. If you think that, I'd be interested to hear why in a way that doesn't assume that a game where it isn't the primary focus is drab and uninteresting.

What makes evocative language so important to the game? What does it add? When compared to interesting situations, how is it more important?

Emphasis mine... a few points...

1. You can't state that it's a thing everyone defines for themselves and then turn around and define it. That's one of the issues with this thread everyone has their own definition but then the OP is trying to use that preference to define what is core to roleplaying instead of just stating what we prefer.

2. Situation in turn is just as broad. Does it also encompass relationships? Setting? Environment? Description? Exploration? IMO the definition of "situation", at least how I've seen it used here is just as broad and ill-defined if not more than the definition some are using for literary. I think clarity around both is needed if a real discussion to take place. At least so we are all talking about the same thing.