Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

*Deleted by user*

Maxperson said:

No.

A lot of people with great ideas have been ignored by people, because the one with the idea didn't say it right. A lot of horrors have happened, because someone with a bad idea that people generally wouldn't listen to, were sold on it by someone saying it the right way. How you say something is very often more important than what you are saying.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree. But you are misreading what I am saying. I am saying exactly because what you said is true we should pay more attention to substance than packaging, more attention to a person's ideas than the rhetoric they wrap it up in, and more attention to what a GM is actually saying than the way they are saying it.

So I wasn't denying that people pay attention to how things are said. I didn't say this wasn't the case. My statement was saying it shouldn't be the case. It is an ought statement. Wouldn't you agree the things you mention in your quote are bad? Doesn't this suggest we should pay more attention to substance than delivery? The example I gave was from I, Claudius. In that scene, which I tweaked to fit to this context, he is speaking to the Senate after the Praetorians declared him emperor. One of the issues the senate is concerned about is his mind and his stammer. So he says what a man says is more important than how long he takes to say it.

lowkey13 said:

Since I clearly lack the cognitive ability to understand the context of this discussion

[...]

why don't you explain it to me like I'm a slightly dumb golden retriever, since it is very very tiring for people to keep saying "But you just don't understand what the OP really meant" without proffering an explanation.

Click to expand...

Histrionic much? Look, if you find this so "very tiring," what, then, is the purpose of your reentry into the discussion every few hundred posts? Clearly you must derive something from this discussion beyond the occasional impulse to meet head and keyboard?

Good? So tell me, in your own words, what exactly the intent behind the term "literary" is, and why that distinction matters for the post your responded to.

Click to expand...

As I stated pretty early in this thread, I believe any attempt to define some immutable, univeral definition for "literary/literature" is a fool's errand. What matters for this thread is not fixing some definition but rather [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s argument that what makes TTRPGs unique and distinct from literature is the framing of situations as a call to action on the part of the PC-inhabiting-player over descriptive flourishes as performance for performance's sake.

While this thread has occasionally offered some other interesting discussion, I don't believe squabbling over definitions has provided anything really useful.

So, no, I won't define "exactly the intent behind the term 'literary'" beyond what I have said above: this thread's main thrust is about framing engaging calls to action as core to TTRPGing over performance for performance's sake (though, and perhaps I separate myself from pemerton on this, I don't think this is a universal statement: I think there are gamestyles and players who value performance for performance's sake over the engaging call to action).

*Deleted by user*

Manbearcat said:

Couple things:

1) In the spirit of this thread, I was trying to demonstrate that the framing of the creature is hierarchically more important than the words used to depict it (though again, they matter...they’re just lower in the hierarchy).

Click to expand...

I'd say that's a matter of opinion. Without words, there is no framing; and without the right words the framing very likely isn't going to come off in the manner intended.

2) If you aren’t thematically framing a “bogeyman” as a bogeyman, then it seems pretty apt to point out that the situation the PCs are confronted with would be “bogeymanless”!

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but it's still a slimy creature with big teeth and an attitude that the PCs have to deal with in whatever manner they see fit.

3) In your last sentence, what do “threat”, “interesting”, and “does it right” mean here in terms of confronting the PCs with a bogeyman trope? Are you just saying that you can present bogeymen in “bogeyman-neutral” ways that are still interesting threats? If so, that’s a pretty straight-forward claim. Of course you can. But the framing will have an extremely consequential impact on both the gamestate and on players’ emotional entanglement.

Click to expand...

I'm saying it's possible to present the creature as consequential etc. without even pulling out the bogeyman trope. That, and my example was dealing with the idea of maintaining interest by making up a new creature on the fly rather than relying on the standbys; this doesn't work with the bogeyman trope as that trope requires some prior set-up and-or foreshadowing either direct from the PCs' backstories or stories they've heard from elsewhere.

lowkey13 said:

Look at the comments you have made in defense of this theory. Long, lengthy, well-written, good grammar, decent vocabulary, engaged with the argument, and so on.

Click to expand...

Sure. Yes. My framing, narration, gaming conversation, etc., is probably, by some metrics, more "literary" than someone with less formal education, less experience with public speaking, etc.

My point wasn't solely about my experience though. I teach RPGs to children ranging from ages 6-14 (and some older). Many of them do not have well-honed skill with language. Many of them succeed at running (and playing in) awesome games, despite that weakness. I am not arguing that good narration can't help—skillful presentation matters in RPGs as in other mediums—but I've slowly come to accept [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s basic premise that it is not the most significant element. I regularly see GMs with strong language skills struggling to attract players to their tables because they talk too much or only want the story to go their way. For the kids who stick with it, there is much to enjoy: the GMs may write great descriptions, have good voice control, use spooky foreshadowing, etc. But, often, the table nearby, with a GM who is flustered and has weak vocabulary manages to be more popular because that GM is refereeing a more engaging story, a story primarily written by the other players, dependent on interesting (or hilarious or gruesome) interactions between characters and the fictional environment.

Similarly, in college, I had the opportunity to do a two-year folklore study of RPGs. (This was amazing. Still pinching myself.) I referred in my last post to the "torture" of typing up transcripts. That was a big part of the project. I ended up with hundreds of hours of recordings of live D&D games. As I analyzed that data, it was surprising to me that some of the most compelling games (from the perspective of the players at the table) did not depend on strong rhetoric, great writing, lots of GM prep, etc. At the time, I wasn't primarily focusing on that element and didn't even have a vocabulary for talking about it (this thread is a couple decades late), but it stuck with me.

To the extent you do not enjoy longer narration, that's fine! That's a preference! But ... and I'm going to say this one more time ... just because someone prefers Hemingway over Henry Miller doesn't mean that they are both effective at what they do. Follow me?

Click to expand...

Yes. I agree with you.

My post was in response to the idea that [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s maxim, "How you say something is very often more important than what you are saying," applies universally to all forms of communication. I think the statement is more applicable to communication styles that require the words to stand on their own. Written communication, especially, benefits from a better presentation because there are no conversational elements, no facial expressions, no gestures, no ability to interrupt and ask questions, etc. Speeches and theatrical performances create a similar separation of performer and audience, though communication can be achieved through things other than words. The playing of an RPG, at least when you're around a traditional tabletop, is more like a conversation, which is judged by different criteria.

Not saying there ain't overlap. Not saying that a great voice actor can't add a lot to a game (personally, I like that stuff). Not saying that some groups might not play quite differently. But I'm largely sold on the premise that if I'm helping to train up new GMs, I should focus my energy on their fictional situations rather than on teaching them more evocative vocabulary. There are exceptions, of course, and as a teacher, I would adjust my approach accordingly.

darkbard said:

As I stated pretty early in this thread, I believe any attempt to define some immutable, univeral definition for "literary/literature" is a fool's errand.

Click to expand...

Probably true, but as the thread title not only includes the word 'literary' but highlights it, it only follows that some time then has to be spent nailing down a) what the OP specifically meant by the word and b) what the word means to everyone else in general. These two things so far don't appear to be the same, and this difference represents about 500 posts so far.

What matters for this thread is not fixing some definition but rather [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s argument that what makes TTRPGs unique and distinct from literature is the framing of situations as a call to action on the part of the PC-inhabiting-player over descriptive flourishes as performance for performance's sake.

Click to expand...

And even this comes down to a) definition and b) preference. The OP has been fairly consistent over the long run in suggesting he prefers to frame situations that almost force the players - through their PCs - to act*. But it's also possible - and sometimes even desireable - to frame situations much more passively and merely give the players - through their PCs - a choice as to whether to act or not; leaving it up to the players to drive the action by what they do or don't do.

Put another way - and even this might not be any clearer - there's nothing at all wrong with a flourished description of a situation in which "we do nothing" would be a valid declaration from the players/PCs. Not every description should force the players into react mode; I'd far rather the description neutrally be what it is (and worded well enough to be engaging in and of itself) and have the players in proact mode deciding a) if the described situation warrants any action at all, and if so then b) what that action will be.

* - said action being open-ended and not pre-determined or pre-supposed in any way.

While this thread has occasionally offered some other interesting discussion, I don't believe squabbling over definitions has provided anything really useful.

Click to expand...

Well, it has; in that it's shown that some posters** feel the entire thread is built on a faulty premise due to a not-fully-agreed definition of the highlighted word in its title, and would like to see that foundation more firmly nailed in place before trying to build a discussion on it. That said, I'll confess to having mostly skipped over many of the definition-argument posts.

** - of which I'm not one, really - I kinda get what the OP's definition is (I think!) but I'm not sold on the underlying premise he puts forward.

*Deleted by user*

uzirath said:

people are cutting each other off; etc. The participants in those conversations, however, may not even notice these rhetorical flaws, especially if they are deeply engaged with the content being discussed.

Click to expand...

"With all those idiots and maniacs on the road, it's a wonder we get anywhere at all!" - George Carlin

It's a wonder; and it's humans actively working with each other, in speech just as on the freeways.

It's possible for people to work with each other during less-conversational communication. If a DM is trying for a fancy description, and failing, it's often possible for a player to interrupt just long enough to ask a helpful guiding question. DM: "A squamous, amorphous entity inches towards you..." Player: "When you say inching, do you mean moving by extension and retraction, like a slime monster, or do you mean that its movement rate is less than ours?"

*Deleted by user*