The problem is, while you are having this discussion about using different terms from different media, that's never actually been the point. Who cares if these things appear in cinema or whatever? It doesn't matter.
The point is and has been that it is inaccurate to refer to 'narrative devices' as a "literary" when discussing TTRPGs as a medium/genre. If you believe and/or demonstrate that TTRPGs are literature, as Maxperson attempted to argue in this thread, then it would be applicable. Even if we summarize pemerton's meaning of "literary" to mean "wordcraft," that does not make your (mis)use of "literary" acceptable because your use of "literary" in this thread also involves equivocating its meaning between pemerton's use, literature, and making categorical mistakes when you are discussing narratology. And that has basically been a part of your discussion of various elements as "literary devices" when you are actually referring to "narrative devices" when discussed in the context of TTRPGs. If context matters, as per what you suggest in your worldbuilding "epiphany," then it would likely be appropriate if you applied an understanding of context when discussing narrative devices in TTRPGs.
The point is, none of these elements EVER appear in conversation. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s basic point has been that it's the conversation of an RPG - the back and forth, plain language conversation during the game that drives the action and it's the situations and the content of the conversations that drives the emotional connection.
Thing is, I've just shown that to be pretty much wrong. All the context of an RPG comes from the "not content" side of the equation. That's the side that Pemerton labeled "Literary". As in wordcraft, which, well, includes things like world building and whatnot. Like I said, [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION], I couldn't give a fetid dingo's kidney what you want to call it. It's really NOT the point. The point is, that it's NOT THE CONTENT side that drives the emotional connection of the game alone. It's the content IN CONJUNCTION WITH the literary (stuff that's not just content) that drives an RPG.
Thing is, I don't think that you have shown [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] to be wrong. In his very first post, he says:
What matters to me is that the players feel the significance of the situations the GM describes - that they feel the pull to action, and the threats of inaction. That is, that the situation engage and motivate the players as players, not as an audience to a performance. And player narration should, in my view, engage with and build on this fiction in ways that display the player's view of the fiction, perhaps challenge other players (and even the GM), that make the other pariticpants go "I didn't see that coming!"
It seems like to me that pemerton believes that player engagement with the fiction/narrative drives the action but that "[he doesn't] think that the literary quality of that narration is important." So does the wordcraft of that particular worldbuilding of the monster in Scarred Lands matter for the action? Or does it matter more that the players understand the stakes of the fiction when presented with that monster? I am inclined to believe that it is the latter, and I don't think that you demonstrated in your epiphany that "the literary quality of that narration" of that monster matters.
That the stuff that's Not Content also appears in other media doesn't matter. IOW, I do not care that you can apply these same terms to other media. It doesn't matter because that's never been what I'm talking about with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]. You've gone off on your own little side thing here, and all you've done is cloud the issue.
What you perhaps don't realize is that this "little side thing here" had already transpired as part of the thread when you misused the term "literary device" when describing TTRPGs and equivocated on that term. When you speak, for example, in your epiphany that "It's the literary - world building, setting construction, theme, trope" that matters, you are clearly delving outside of pemerton's sense of "literary as wordcraft" and expanding to the "literary as literature." And it is in this latter sense that you misuse "literary" to refer to narrative.
Now, if you don't care what it's called and you concede that you are really speaking of narrative/storytelling devices, then would you mind using your terms correctly for once instead of falling back on misuing the terms and describing this as a "literary device"?
