Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

What's A or B?

Good grief. How hard is it to define your terms?

Third time I'm asking now.

Please, for the love of little fishes DEFINE WHAT YOU MEAN.

Hussar said:

What's A or B?

Good grief. How hard is it to define your terms?

Third time I'm asking now.

Please, for the love of little fishes DEFINE WHAT YOU MEAN.

Click to expand...

Hussar, these are not "[our] terms," but, rather, terms that others have supplied in this thread. We have been responding to those terms. I have been working with those terms. If you ever bother reading the literature provided in this discussion, I have indicated quite explicitly which sense I have been working with for engaging one line of reasoning in the discussion.

You yourself listed two senses of the word "literature": (1) literature as "written texts" and (2) literature as "high written art".

Bedrockgames generally operates from a more conventional sense of literature: sense (2). However, Bedrockgames also opposes the equivocation of these two meanings, particularly when people argue that RPGs are written texts (1) and then using that to then advocate that RPGs should be approached as "high art" (2). He also opposes Maxperson turning nearly everything into qualifying as "literature," including conversations.

I don't particularly care about meaning (2) because you have asserted repeatedly now that you agree that RPGs would not qualify as (2). So I have been arguing against RPGs as literature on the basis of (1), i.e., Max's use.

I am not making the positive assertion that RPGs qualify as literature. People arguing that RPGs qualify as literature (1) have supplied their definitions. So I am engaging those definitions and arguments. The argumentative onus is not on me to supply a definition of "literature," because I am not the one who making a positive statement.

So let us be clear here where Bedrockgames and I align:
If we define literature as (2), then RPGs are not literature.
If we define literature as (1), then RPGs are not literature.

I have made it clear what I mean by a *literary endeavour*. I mean an endeavour that regards the formal quality of words - wordcraft, if you like - as its main, or perhaps one of its main, techniques for evoking aesthetic resonses. Without wanting to detract from any of [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]'s excellent points, I would regard at least some film and theatre as literary endeavours in this sense. So are poetry recitals. But cooking certainly is not; and nor are you Youtube instructional videos I was using earlier this year when I wanted to puree mango without a blender/food processor. Whereas the typical Nigella Lawson show probably does count as a literary endeavour in my sense.

The pacing issue was first raised by [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] early in the thread, and I stand by my reply to him as far as my particular contention is concerned.

Hussar said:

What's A or B?

Good grief. How hard is it to define your terms?

Third time I'm asking now.

Please, for the love of little fishes DEFINE WHAT YOU MEAN.

Click to expand...

I am not staking out one particular meaning for Literary. I am pointing out that there are multiple meanings and the crux of this debate centers around posters equivocating around meaning A and meaning B and not recognizing what they are doing. This fundamentally makes the argument impossible to have.

But also I think Aldarc and I have been very clear: no matter what meaning you utilize, it seems pretty shaky to say because roleplaying games involve Literary A, B or C, they are therefore literary endeavors. The cooking and sports analogy is a perfect example of why. Now Maxperson was willing to argue that sports are literary when this point was made. But that is clearly an absurd claim. Also, to what end are we having this discussion about definitions? What is it about RPGs being literary that is important to you Hussar and why are you so insistent that we see RPGs in this way as well? Again, I suspect the answer will bring us to points about playstyle. If that is the case, then make your playstyle claims, don't try to win a playstyle argument by controlling definitions and terms. RPGs are X or are not Y is a classic debating tactic that I've just seen too frequently, and even used myself, in arguments around playstyle. And clearly, based on you and Maxperson's posts, we are debating what should be going on at the gaming table, what GM advice is good or bad, etc. Whether you think me not caring about pacing is a playstyle point that has almost nothing to do with wether pacing is or is not a literary concern. The reason you dislike it is going to be something more like "because it makes the game dull" than "because it isn't literary". So let's focus on what the actual lines of dispute are, rather than fight endlessly over the definition of literary.

Hussar said:

What's A or B?

Good grief. How hard is it to define your terms?

Third time I'm asking now.

Please, for the love of little fishes DEFINE WHAT YOU MEAN.

Click to expand...

I defined A and B like five or six times in this discussion.

A: written works,
B: especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit.

But again, I was merely trying to identify the points of equivocation around how people were using the term. If we want to have a debate about what literature really, that is a longer and separate discussions in my view.

and if we use Max Person's usage it is something like A-Words on a page & B-works aiming for higher literary quality. Again the point here is to identify where the equivocation is occurring.

Look I am not just being a jerk here. This logical error is one of the most frequent ones I see in debates about terms and play styles. I encounter it all the time. I've even at times been persuaded by it before I realized what was going on. It isn't a good argument to establish A in order to promote B.

I too am not trying to be a jerk here. Honest.

The problem is, as soon as any point gets brought up, regardless of its merit or not, is immediately brushed off as "well, that's not what I mean by literary". It's "part of theater" or "part of a cookbook" or "part of movies" or whatever.

So, until such time as you folks would kinds SPECIFICALLY detail what you EXACTLY mean by literary, there's no point. Because simply saying, "well, I mean wordcraft... unless that line of reasoning hurts my point in which case wordcraft isn't what I mean, because that kind of wordcraft belongs to this other art form and...." so on and so forth.

If we're going with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s point that literary= using wordcraft as in high art, then this conversation is over. It's done. Everyone agrees with you [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION].

But, again, what the hell does "wordcraft" mean? Why do you repeatedly have to invent words to try to make your point? Is it that hard to define your terms using actual English?

At the end of the day, if you folks aren't willing to specify exactly what you mean, then this conversation is done.

Hussar said:

I too am not trying to be a jerk here. Honest.

The problem is, as soon as any point gets brought up, regardless of its merit or not, is immediately brushed off as "well, that's not what I mean by literary". It's "part of theater" or "part of a cookbook" or "part of movies" or whatever.
.

Click to expand...

We are not saying it 'isn't how I use literary', we are pointing out the posters are using it multiple ways and equivocating, or they are making a logical mistep in thinking just because something has some literary in it, that makes it a literary endeavor. We are trying to follow the meanings of the people making the claims about the literariness of RPGs.

So what part of my cookbook or sports rulebook analogy do you not understand? I feel that I have explained it quite well (if not overly so) several times now.

Hussar said:

I too am not trying to be a jerk here. Honest.

The problem is, as soon as any point gets brought up, regardless of its merit or not, is immediately brushed off as "well, that's not what I mean by literary". It's "part of theater" or "part of a cookbook" or "part of movies" or whatever.

So, until such time as you folks would kinds SPECIFICALLY detail what you EXACTLY mean by literary, there's no point. Because simply saying, "well, I mean wordcraft... unless that line of reasoning hurts my point in which case wordcraft isn't what I mean, because that kind of wordcraft belongs to this other art form and...." so on and so forth.

If we're going with @pemerton's point that literary= using wordcraft as in high art, then this conversation is over. It's done. Everyone agrees with you @pemerton.

But, again, what the hell does "wordcraft" mean? Why do you repeatedly have to invent words to try to make your point? Is it that hard to define your terms using actual English?

At the end of the day, if you folks aren't willing to specify exactly what you mean, then this conversation is done.

Click to expand...

I think there are three basic meanings of Literary being used by different posters. The first is simply 'written works' (A). The second written works aspiring to high art (B) and the third is written works of quality or resembling those found in a novel (C). You and Maxperson seem to be emphasizing C, but Maxperson is getting to see by way of A. Pemerton is speaking strictly about B, which I think is the more immediately recognizable meaning of literary. Wordcraft is also pretty self explanatory and an existing word (and I am definitely not one to advocate for the proliferation of jargon because it clouds discussion). In this case, I don't think Pemerton was being at all cloudy about what he meant, and he didn't equivocate. He stuck to B. There has been tremendous equivocation by others advocating that RPGs should be like B or C, but done by trying to establish that A is the case. Also, Pemerton is making a negative claim about B (RPGs generally are not B), and you and Maxperson are making positive claims about A, B and C (but again, this only seems to be done by trying to prove A is the case, then equivocating onto B and C).

Sadras said:

I'm running a heavily modified B10, with tie-ins to past characters of our table's failed/abandoned adventuring parties. It took me a significant period of time to lace together a backstory for this linear mini-campaign that logically incorporates parts of the module as well as the various characters (PCs and ex-PCs) and their motivations.

Now I am no wordsmith, but at the simplest level I do consider my efforts in structuring this inter-connected backstory that engages and surprises the players a literary endeavour.

Click to expand...

I would say that as an attempt to craft a story....or at least to craft the beginning of a story that the players will pick up and run with...this would be a literary endeavor.

Now, having crafted that story from all those threads, what would you say would most engage your players? The literary merit of your efforts? Or the content of the fiction?

I think that this is part of the issue with this discussion. Some folks are simply trying to answer the question posed in the thread title (I was guilty of this with my first post, too) instead of reading the OP and additional posts that explained what the actual point was. For the most part, that element of the discussion’s become mired in arguments over definition.

But the actual point raised in the OP asks if literary quality is more important than content as it relates to player engagement.

So I would agree with you that your effort (and by extension any such story crafting effort by a GM and players) does constitute a literary endeavor.

But for the second part of the discussion, without knowing all the details, it’s hard to say. What do you think? Are your players going to be more excited about what you’ve set up, or how you’ve set it up?