Is RPGing a literary endeavour?

Imaro · Jun 7, 2019

Lanefan said:
For the colourful Bard, as the colourful part is obviously intended to be significant I'd probably ask the player to note on the character sheet a few details of what pieces of clothing are usually what colours, just so it's locked in in case it ever becomes relevant later. ("we need a distress flag and that bright red tunic will do nicely - give it 'ere!")

What I find strange about this is that the clothes are important enough (and I would assume colorful enough) to be noticeable and yet the actual colors have never been commented on by other players, NPC's, etc. I just find that weird does everyone just comment using the word colorful?

Ovinomancer · Jun 8, 2019

Maxperson said:
Key detail. Insufficient detail. It's the same thing. Lacking a key detail is insufficient.

Right, but the argument wasn't skipping key details, it was, in fact, about non-key details not being those that can be elided or glossed. You presented scenarios where key details were left out as if it was countering this claim, when it was part of the claim that the focus should be on those details necessary for the character to engage the challenge. You argued against an argument not made.

It listed examples of unnecessary specifics, but it made the claim that players imaging different things is often not an issue. Then it gave limited examples where it wasn't an issue. I was countering by saying that it often is an issue. And then I gave limited examples where it was an issue. My post was a counter to his. A few examples is not exhaustive of the possibilities and I am not limited to what he gave examples of when presenting a counter argument.

Yes, you countered a post about how players imagining unnecessary specifics in different ways isn't an issue with presenting how you imagined key, necessary details differently from your GM and how he was a jerk about it. Totally not the same thing. The argument that it's okay to imagine necessary, key, sufficient details differently was not made, but you've argued that one down very well.

Maybe I'm more forgiving than you are, but I don't automatically assume it was the DM's fault. The detail might have been sufficient, but I still misunderstood. When misunderstandings happen, things should be corrected if it turns out that it was DM error, but not when the misunderstanding is player error.

I'm very forgiving for miscommunications, but not correcting it before leveling consequences on your character for the miscommunication is totally the GM's fault. The GM's job is to adequately present the scene so the players can make informed decisions. Failing that, the job is to correct the first error. If the GM instead chooses to punish the character for the misunderstanding, that's poor GMing.

We can split this one off into a different thread, if you like, but I'm not going to move on this one. The job description of the GM is to present the scene to the players such that the game can happen. This is fundamental, and no amount of "but I might of misunderstood the great GM so it might be my fault" abused-player syndrome reactions will alter that the GM failed you, then failed you again, then punished you for their compounded failures.

I disagree with the bolded part. If the PCs are in the kings castle and they find a secret door leading to a room, and when they open the door I describe the dust billowing into the air from the opening of the door, that's not a necessary detail. I've added it to evoke a sense of how long it has been since anyone has been there. It's a detail that will, for a great many people, add to the depth and feel of the game. All that was necessary is to tell them that the door opens.

Does it matter if your players all imagine the dust billowing in different way? I mean, if we're going to stay on topic.

Hussar · Jun 8, 2019

Imaro said:
What I find strange about this is that the clothes are important enough (and I would assume colorful enough) to be noticeable and yet the actual colors have never been commented on by other players, NPC's, etc. I just find that weird does everyone just comment using the word colorful?

Well, yes, of course, because any further commentary would be getting away from "conversation" and into "literary" and, well, no one ever wants that level of detail at their table, do they? :erm:

Maxperson · Jun 8, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
Right, but the argument wasn't skipping key details, it was, in fact, about non-key details not being those that can be elided or glossed. You presented scenarios where key details were left out as if it was countering this claim, when it was part of the claim that the focus should be on those details necessary for the character to engage the challenge. You argued against an argument not made.

Yes, you countered a post about how players imagining unnecessary specifics in different ways isn't an issue with presenting how you imagined key, necessary details differently from your GM and how he was a jerk about it. Totally not the same thing. The argument that it's okay to imagine necessary, key, sufficient details differently was not made, but you've argued that one down very well.

This is what he said.

"Somewhat contra [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], it often doesn't matter at all if the players think different things about the fiction."

Where in there does it specify non-key details? It doesn't. He was very general with his claim.

Ovinomancer · Jun 8, 2019

Maxperson said:
This is what he said.

"Somewhat contra [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], it often doesn't matter at all if the players think different things about the fiction."

Where in there does it specify non-key details? It doesn't. He was very general with his claim.

Seriously. :|

Okay, I suppose your point in the last few threads was: "[t]he thing is, those times where it doesn't matter.......don't matter." This looks like perfect agreement with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], so we're done here? Or, maybe, is there a lot more than a single line in your posts and the rest might have some context or expansion of the idea? I wouldn't want to strawman your argument by taking a single line out of of the larger argument you made and treat it as if it stands entirely on it's own. That would be a bad look.

Maxperson · Jun 8, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
Seriously. :|

Okay, I suppose your point in the last few threads was: "[t]he thing is, those times where it doesn't matter.......don't matter." This looks like perfect agreement with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], so we're done here? Or, maybe, is there a lot more than a single line in your posts and the rest might have some context or expansion of the idea? I wouldn't want to strawman your argument by taking a single line out of of the larger argument you made and treat it as if it stands entirely on it's own. That would be a bad look.

Way to deliberately ignore the important part of my post. You know, in your first response to me it actually sounded as if you might debate this one in good faith. I should have known better.

Hussar · Jun 8, 2019

pemerton said:
/snip

Clearly one can narrate and describe without caring about that stuff, and therefore without aiming at literary quality. People do it all the time, when they talk about what happened in their day, or a person they met; or when they speculate about how they would like to spend tomorrow, or what sort of person they would like to meet. It's not just that looking at an everyday conversation, or an IKEA instruction manual, through the lens of a New Yorker critic would lead to an unflattering review - it would be a category error, because those things aren't intended to be works of art, not even amateur or kitsch ones./snip

So, we're right back to literary = high art. Ok. Again, I ONE HUNDRED PERCENT agree with you as does everyone else in this thread.

Why do you keep trying to present it as something else then?

This thread just keeps circling around and around because, when I agree with you, you say, "Nope, that's not what I mean." So, what do you mean? "Well, I mean literary=high art". Ok, then I agree with you, and so does everyone else here, RPG's aren't high art. "But, that's not what I mean." So, what do you mean? "Well, I mean literary=high art"

ARRGGGHH.

pemerton · Jun 8, 2019

pemerton said:
I didn't, and don't, think that that is uncontentious. That's why I started a discussion about it!

Imaro said:
I think that is contentious

I assume you're not meaning that it's contentious that I think it's not uncontentious. Rather, I take it you're agreeing with me that it's not uncontentious.

pemerton said:
A boardgame like Descent or the 4e based boardgames are based around calls to action... videogames are based around a call to action

Boardgames don't call to action at all! There is no protagonism in a board game.

To put it at its crudest, boardgames are about mathematics, not passion.

pemerton · Jun 8, 2019

Maxperson said:
So where is the line you can point to and say, "This is literary quality, but that isn't?" As far as I can tell, there isn't one, which makes "literary quality" something that exists in the eye of the beholder, which could include just about anything written.

I don't need to point to a line to make the point that "just about anything written" is not the criterion used by any reviewer in deciding what to review.

And one can't point to a line: for instance, before the invention of reliable, reproducable type I don't think that layout was one of the formal qulaities by which literature was judged. But clearly, over the past century or so, it has become one aspect of literary presentation.

More generally, what counts as literary quality is always changing - that's one funciton of the avant garde.

But none of this means that we can't use a conception of literary quality and express a view as to whether or not it is core to RPGing to aim at it. Is it core to RPGing to aim at the sorts of featurs that generate praise in literary or theatrical reviews? My view is no. Other posters in this thread think the answer is yes - that the participants in a RPG should be aiming to entertain one another through performance and narration.

That's a meaningful disagreement, and it doesn't depend on being able to circumscribe literary quality with a bright line.

Maxperson · Jun 8, 2019

pemerton said:
I don't need to point to a line to make the point that "just about anything written" is not the criterion used by any reviewer in deciding what to review.

No, but "any reviewer" is just giving an opinion on what is quality literary work, not any sort of fact. One reviewer might not view anything less than the quality of Shakespeare as quality. Another might view Cat in the Hat as quality literature. A third might do the same with Mad Magazine.

And one can't point to a line: for instance, before the invention of reliable, reproducable type I don't think that layout was one of the formal qulaities by which literature was judged. But clearly, over the past century or so, it has become one aspect of literary presentation.

More generally, what counts as literary quality is always changing - that's one funciton of the avant garde.

It's also subjective.

But none of this means that we can't use a conception of literary quality and express a view as to whether or not it is core to RPGing to aim at it. Is it core to RPGing to aim at the sorts of featurs that generate praise in literary or theatrical reviews? My view is no. Other posters in this thread think the answer is yes - that the participants in a RPG should be aiming to entertain one another through performance and narration.

Sure, but in the end it's just your opinion on what is quality literature vs. the opinion of someone else. What is quality to you may not be quality to someone else, and what's quality to a third person may not be quality to you.