I did not miss that. Hriston said what he said, in the words he used. You can stand by your assertion that no one has said any such thing; you can walk it back; or you can deflect, dodge, distract and dissemble.
Seriously?
Let's put to one side the fact that, contra [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], Hriston's post was in reply to Hussar, not to him. Here is the exchange between Hussar and Hriston:
If the literary is unimportant, then why do DMG’d include dungeon dressing sections, most of which has little to no mechanical impact?
Because color (dungeon dressing) is content that provides atmosphere when imagined by the participants at the table. The quality of form with which it’s expressed isn’t what’s important but rather whether the odors, noises, furnishings, and items found in an area suggest a torture chamber, a harem, or a wizard’s laboratory. In other words, it’s the actual content that matters, not the particular words that are used and the way they are said.
Hriston is refuting an express claim that "dungeon dressing" is a literary matter simply because it's non-mechanical, and also an apparent implication that the role and significance of dungeon dressing is a matter of evocative words used rather than content conveyed.
Is anyone seriously suggesting, on the basis of this post, that Hriston thinks that word choice never matters to human conversation? or that rudeness ("being a jerk") can't affect human communication?
It's ludicrous that I even have to make a post addressing this.
And while we're doing
review the past for misinterpretations, here are a series of posts from Imaro and me:
Really?? Because I literally brought up this idea that how content was presented could in fact determine whether a group would be interested in the content earlier in the thread (and one of the reasons I thought of it as core to the game) and these were the replies... Emphasis mine.
If the group isn't interested in engaging with the situations presented because your presentation/performance doesn't make it interesting to them... well there's no game.
My take on this is the same as [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s - it sounds to me like the situation is not interesting enough! As I've already posted in this thread, my advice to that GM would be to work on situation, not to work on voice modulation.
Imaro appears to imply that
me doubting whether presentation/performance is central to making a RPG situation interesting is the same as
me denying that how content is presented could ever in fact determine whether a group would be interested in the content. Such that the following, from Imaro, is some sort of "gotcha":
Are you agreeing that how content is presented can determine whether people wish to engage with it?
Do you make the same implication? Do you think it's a reasonable reading of my post?
Just in case it needs to be spelled out (and I think I already posted a version of this a long way upthread, but maybe you and Imaro missed it): If the GM spits on the players, or smells, or speaks a language that is foreign to the players, or yells at them, or calls them ****holes, or any other of the innumerable ways that people can make for unpleasant company and can be unpleasant interlocutors, then I'm sure that might effect the willingness of the players to play the game. If the GM whispers, stammers excessively, mumbles, swallows his/her sentence endings, repeatedly uses the wrong word, etc, etc, then the same might be true.
Much the same things applies to dinner parties, boardgame nights, attending tutorials, and really any occasion where people get together to interact.
Is anyone asserting, on this basis, that all human interaction and communication is a literary endeavour? Is anyone asserting, on this basis, that
speaking loud enough to be heard or
choosing the right word to accurately describe something is an aspect of
literary quality? Or in other words, is anyone asserting that the concept of
literary as an adjective applied to
endeavour and/or
quality is empty, and adds nothing to the general notion of human interaction and communication?
Does anyone who read the OP, which includes the following -
RPGing requires narration: GMs describe situations, and players declare actions for their PCs that respond to those situations - think that I'm unaware that RPGing involves communication and interaction?
I'm frankly at a loss as to what you want me, or [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION], or [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION], to take away from your posts on this matter.
