Is RPGing a literary endeavour?

Riley37 · Jun 13, 2019

pemerton said:
The post you quoted is nearly 400 words, has two footnotes and an edit, and references Hemingway and Henry Miller.

So why are you replying to my four-word (and a link) post, rather than replying directly to the 400-word post?

Perhaps because I said the same thing, but more elegantly, and you hope to elicit further elegant responses, by engaging with me rather than with the anti-paladin?

pemerton · Jun 13, 2019

Riley37 said:
So why are you replying to my four-word (and a link) post, rather than replying directly to the 400-word post?

Perhaps because I said the same thing, but more elegantly, and you hope to elicit further elegant responses, by engaging with me rather than with the anti-paladin?

Having just re-read [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION]'s post, I think I may have misread - by "my last post" perhaps he mean "my previous post" (the next bit of the post itself is not legible for me because of some text formatting issue, but maybe it's a quote of a previous post?).

I feel that reinforces my view that meta-comments (ie on the quality and formal properties of poster's posts, as opposed to what they're actually saying) is generally unproductive.

Riley37 said:
by engaging with me rather than with the anti-paladin

When I play a FRPG I nearly always play a paladin (or similar archetype). Presumably that's more evidence of something-or-other.

Ovinomancer · Jun 13, 2019

Riley37 said:
Alright, Ovinomancer, please issue a ruling:

Should I evaluate Hriston's assertion only according to its literal content?

Or does context change the value of its content?

Is it true... from a certain point of view? That is, the point of view, which equates Hriston with nobody?

Archaic allusion time:

Q: Who did Polyphemos hate, even more than Odysseus?

A: Nobody!

If there's an honest question in there, could you fish it out for me?

Aldarc · Jun 13, 2019

Riley37 said:
Archaic allusion time:

Q: Who did Polyphemos hate, even more than Odysseus?

A: Nobody!

Though I love this reference, I do have to quibble. Polyphemos did not hate "Nobody" (Οὖτις) more than Odysseus, because in his escape Odysseus reveals his actual name to Polyphemos, who then prays to Poseidon for vengeance.

Maxperson · Jun 13, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
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.

It wouldn't be charisma if it didn't work.

Speaking of charisma. In my games I make note of the charisma of the PCs. Even if the most eloquent player gives me an amazing speech, if his PC has a charisma of 4 I'm going to filter that speech though his charisma and the NPCs will hear it different. Conversely, a stammering and stuttering player whose PC is a charisma 20 paladin, will have his speech filtered through the 20 charisma and the NPCs will hear it much more favorably.

That may make it seem like content matters more than presentation, but I don't think that it does. Even with the filter, the presentation still matters just as much as the content. I'm just adjusting the presentation to match the charisma. Both presentation and content matter equally in my opinion.

Imaro · Jun 13, 2019

Maxperson said:
.... the presentation still matters just as much as the content. I'm just adjusting the presentation to match the charisma. Both presentation and content matter equally in my opinion.

This pretty much sums up my stance since this thread began. It's like asking what's more important in playing basketball, being able to dribble or being able to shoot... Both are, even though you could technically play a good game without doing one or the other and/or putting emphasis on one over the other.

Aldarc · Jun 13, 2019

Imaro said:
This pretty much sums up my stance since this thread began. It's like asking what's more important in playing basketball, being able to dribble or being able to shoot... Both are, even though you could technically play a good game without doing one or the other and/or putting emphasis on one over the other.

My take on this thread debate using basketball: What's more important in playing basketball, being able to dribble, shoot, and set up plays or developing a theatrical style to your gameplay.

Maxperson · Jun 13, 2019

Aldarc said:
My take on this thread debate using basketball: What's more important in playing basketball, being able to dribble, shoot, and set up plays or developing a theatrical style to your gameplay.

Bad analogy. This thread debate using basketball would be... What's more important in playing basketball, offense, defense, shooting or dribbling? Theatrics in most sports is nearly non-existent. It shows up a little bit after touchdowns, goals and such, but for most of the game it's not there.

If you wanted to use a "sport" where theatrics and the sport might be on equal ground, go with the WWE. That contains enough theatrics during the entire event to contend with the content of wrestling.

Imaro · Jun 13, 2019

Aldarc said:
My take on this thread debate using basketball: What's more important in playing basketball, being able to dribble, shoot, and set up plays or developing a theatrical style to your gameplay.

Yep and that's why no meaningful discussion is taking place between the two main sides of this argument. You see it as totally superfluous to the game while I and others see it as an integral part of the whole... of course if every time we bring up an example it gets put in the..that's not what we are talking about bin... but when a definite line is asked for it's brushed off as not really required (because of course the people who see it as superfluous all agree on where the line is...the superfluous stuff of course!!.... it's easy to see how such disparate views arise and understanding is minimal.

Aldarc · Jun 13, 2019

Maxperson said:
Bad analogy. This thread debate using basketball would be... What's more important in playing basketball, offense, defense, shooting or dribbling? Theatrics in most sports is nearly non-existent. It shows up a little bit after touchdowns, goals and such, but for most of the game it's not there.

If you wanted to use a "sport" where theatrics and the sport might be on equal ground, go with the WWE. That contains enough theatrics during the entire event to contend with the content of wrestling.

This certainly shows you don't watch much basketball. Theatrics are definitely there. It's part of the dunks, the juking, the fade aways, the finishes, and playstyles of many players. Legendary basketball player Julius Erving (Dr. J.) even got his start in a league dedicated to the theatrics of basketball: the Harlem Globetrotters.