Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

Aldarc said:

Instead, I will suggest that pemerton would argue that "the GM's wordcraft was made for the player and not the player for the GM's wordcraft." .

Click to expand...

I think that's a really good way of summarizing it...well put.

Imaro said:

So is this what you mean in an rpg situation... not regulated to but including active interruption of what you are saying? Besides active interruption what would be other ways of interacting beyond that of a passive audience that using narration disallows? Though I think I would still contend I'm passive until you've communicated the situation (a bomb about to go off in the buiding) to me and I require further clarification, information, etc. The thing is I'd probably gain more/better information/clarity if I waited until you finished telling me wat you know before interrupting...

Click to expand...

I think the idea is that the narration is a call to action on the players' part. Passive not meaning that they stop to listen....that's essential.....but passive meaning when the GM is done, the players don't feel the need to have their characters take action. They are not active in that sense.

The bomb scenario will most likely serve as a call to action, and the players will begin asking questions, or declaring actions for their characters. They will be actively engaged with the fiction rather than simply listening to the narration and then waiting for the GM to tell them the next thing they need to know.

@pemerton is placing more importance on the call to action than on the quality of the narration.

hawkeyefan said:

I think that's a really good way of summarizing it...well put.



I think the idea is that the narration is a call to action on the players' part. Passive not meaning that they stop to listen....that's essential.....but passive meaning when the GM is done, the players don't feel the need to have their characters take action. They are not active in that sense.

The bomb scenario will most likely serve as a call to action, and the players will begin asking questions, or declaring actions for their characters. They will be actively engaged with the fiction rather than simply listening to the narration and then waiting for the GM to tell them the next thing they need to know.

@pemerton is placing more importance on the call to action than on the quality of the narration.

Click to expand...

But, and yes this is a simplified example, I can just as easily narrate 4 snarling goblins that have weapons drawn as part of a room's description (and there are plenty of examples of this type of thing in published modules) so how is this different from a call to action... if at all?

Edit: Narration can in effect assist that call to action by keeping the momentum of action going (since description and clarity have been provided) vs. It becoming a game of 20 questions before the action actually starts.

Imaro said:

Ok I'm more confused... If "Everyone gets a chance to say what they have to say..." then at some point narration is occurring and there is a passive audience listening to it. I'm failing to see the difference here since characters are free to ask questions, act or do whatever they want once the boxed text (or sometimes when the boxed text) of say a module is being relayed. Now if we are speaking to players creating content during play whenever they want...well then we are back to a small subset of specific games and a specific/narrow playstyle.

Click to expand...

You are not listening passively if you can interject, respond, and add in action you want to take. I am saying there is a big difference between a group where the GM is given the space to read a full block of boxed text, or to finish his or her narration, and a group where the players might throw in a question before the GM finishes the first sentence. Are you seriously arguing that all players are passive audience members, simply by virtue of the GM speaking? If you are then, it seems a really low bar for 'passive audience'.

Imaro said:

Ok I'm more confused... If "Everyone gets a chance to say what they have to say..." then at some point narration is occurring and there is a passive audience listening to it.

Click to expand...

All I meant by this is people are not rude and deliberately preventing one another from communicating. There is a conversational exchange. It is not passive

Bedrockgames said:

You are not listening passively if you can interject, respond, and add in action you want to take. I am saying there is a big difference between a group where the GM is given the space to read a full block of boxed text, or to finish his or her narration, and a group where the players might throw in a question before the GM finishes the first sentence. Are you seriously arguing that all players are passive audience members, simply by virtue of the GM speaking? If you are then, it seems a really low bar for 'passive audience'.

Click to expand...

I'd wonder why a player wouldn't wait (at least until the 1st sentence is finished) to see if their question would be answered...

Edit: I'm not understanding passive then because in all rpg's the players will eventually interact/respond with/to the narrative being presented by the GM... is amount of time the determining factor?? If not what determines a group as passive vs. not??? Can the GM also cut off a player to ask a question or declare an action?

Imaro said:

I'd wonder why a player wouldn't wait (at least until the 1st sentence is finished) to see if their question would be answered...

Edit: I'm not understanding passive then because in all rpg's the players will eventually interact/respond with/to the narrative being presented by the GM... is amount of time the determining factor?? If not what determines a group as passive vs. not??? Can the GM also cut off a player to ask a question or declare an action?

Click to expand...

Your definition of passive seems quite unusual. What is more, your argument for it is...odd as well. You are trying to characterize otherwise active players as passive by finding a moment they are not seemingly active. This would be like describing a serial killer as non-violent because when they are sleeping, they peaceful.

Imaro said:

I'd wonder why a player wouldn't wait (at least until the 1st sentence is finished) to see if their question would be answered...

Click to expand...

They might. It depends. The point is they can interject—-and that interjection might lead to a different description because the GM is reacting to the player’s curiosity. The bigger point is: players don’t expect long moments of narration by the GM, they expect to be active participants in what is going on. This isn’t a story the GM is unfurling for passive players.

Imaro said:

But, and yes this is a simplified example, I can just as easily narrate 4 snarling goblins that have weapons drawn as part of a room's description (and there are plenty of examples of this type of thing in published modules) so how is this different from a call to action... if at all?

Edit: Narration can in effect assist that call to action by keeping the momentum of action going (since description and clarity have been provided) vs. It becoming a game of 20 questions before the action actually starts.

Click to expand...

I think it's a question of the amount of narration. Sure, you can have a lot of descriptive language around a call to action.....they need not be mutually exclusive. And for me personally, I think how I would present the call to action would really depend on the specific situation in the fiction. Do I want to set a mood by really painting a detailed picture of the situation and their surroundings, what they see and hear and smell, and then give the players a choice? Or do I want to hit them with the choice like a punch to the gut?

I think both options have their place, ultimately. But I think I would rely on one more than the other to try and make the game compelling and keep it moving.

Imaro said:

I'd wonder why a player wouldn't wait (at least until the 1st sentence is finished) to see if their question would be answered...

Edit: I'm not understanding passive then because in all rpg's the players will eventually interact/respond with/to the narrative being presented by the GM... is amount of time the determining factor?? If not what determines a group as passive vs. not??? Can the GM also cut off a player to ask a question or declare an action?

Click to expand...

I think that it's a case of the GM's narration leading to a point of decision. I don't think all boxed text does this by any means. I've read plenty of boxed text and then my players stare at me without any sense of what to do.

I also think that boxed text is A THING.....like it's a trigger that the GM is talking and the players should shut up and listen. And while I think this is good in some ways (attention, etc.), I think it is bad in other ways. I often think it's good to break it up with questions and answers rather than to expect everyone to retain all of it in one infodrop.

My two most recent GMing experiences have been running Tomb Of Annihilation for 5E, which consists of a hexcrawl followed by a classic dungeon delve, and with running Blades in the Dark, which has almost no prepared material other than the setting. In Tomb, I had to read boxed text and adhere to it because the procedures that the players had their characters perform mattered very much....the actions, they took and where and how and when....all of that could matter quite a lot due to traps or monsters or secret doors and so on. You had to know when someone entered the room and touched the statue, and where everyone else was and so on. I had to read nearly all boxed text multiple times. Now, this is largely because of the play style of the adventure, but I think it's also the nature of boxed text.....it usually tries to cram as much information in as possible. So afterward, the players always have questions.....and because the boxed text is there, you reread it, or part of it to them.

It's kind of an awkward way of presenting information, and I would rarely think of it as literary. Sure, there is some flavor that is included to help set mood and so forth, but the way it winds up working at the table is just awkward.

Blades in the Dark summarizes a RPG as being a conversation. There's meant to be back and forth. There are meant to be questions and response and building on what others ask or say. There's no point where you are reading prepared material (although you could pre-write some bits if you really wanted, but they'd be limited to the start of a session).

For me, the natural flow of Blades in the Dark is much more preferable, and actually engages the players more, in my opinion. That could of course be entirely unique to my group, but I expect others would agree.

Again, I agree that evocative narration and the call to action are not mutually exclusive....but I think that there's a strong case for one being more central to many RPGs.

Bedrockgames said:

Your definition of passive seems quite unusual. What is more, your argument for it is...odd as well. You are trying to characterize otherwise active players as passive by finding a moment they are not seemingly active. This would be like describing a serial killer as non-violent because when they are sleeping, they peaceful.

Click to expand...

No in my mind playing an rpg isn't passive entertainment... so claiming any players are passive (not acting or making choices but just being read to) means they aren't actually playing an rpg.