Is RPGing a literary endeavour?

darkbard · May 28, 2019

Umbran said:
What do we gain, in our consideration of our hobby, from proclaiming one over the other?

Uncritical advocacy may not add anything at all. But critical analysis and discussion can help sharpen the focus of what separates the activity of RPGing from other endeavors. This is not to say that critical analysis of elements RPGing shares with other activities is ipso facto useless, but it does provide a locus for discussion on the unique attributes of RPGing, and I think that's pretty useful.

Bedrockgames · May 28, 2019

Lanefan said:
Er...how isn't it?

I mean, right now I'm engaging in wordcraft as I try to come up with appropriate words to type (and in the right sequence) in order to get my point across. Doubtless you'll do the same if-when you reply to this.

Same thing happens in conversation, though often at a more rapid pace and with less and sometimes no conscious effort. And for those speaking in a language not natively their own, much more conscious effort is involved until-unless complete fluency is attained.

I think there is a huge difference though between conversational English where I am not seeking to utilize literary or oratorical skill and wordcraft. Otherwise, wordcraft is so general, you do it naturally all the time and we are stuck with the 'its inescapable' problem. If something is so natural and second nature to communication that you do it anyways, there is no need to draw distinctions around things like wordcraft, because it will happen naturally on its own. I do think there is value in wordcraft, it has uses in many areas. I just don't see it as part of what I an doing when I talk with my friends at the gaming table. There my interest is holding an engaging conversation. I don't have to worry about whether I am overusing a particular adjective, thrown ums and ahs in my sentences or speaking in the passive voice. I am just talking however I am naturally inclined to talk. I may be picking my words as I do so, but I am not concerned with these aspects of style that would concern me when I am writing a humor piece or a vivid description in a short story. The use of wordcraft, if it even exists in this conversational approach, seems so minimal to not be worth mentioning.

hawkeyefan · May 28, 2019

Umbran said:
That may be a false dichotomy.

Remember that Call of Cthulhu is a *horror* game. Can we agree that achieving some sensation of horror is one (possibly among many) implicit goal of play?

Things that achieve the goals of play are the substance, are they not?

It's a dichotomy in that I think most games have both, sure. But I think that there are examples in other media we could point to where how the story is told is more important than the story itself. Something like Mulholland Drive, let's say....or most of Lynch's work, to be honest.

Do you think this exists in RPGs?

Umbran said:
Well, of course you can play Call of Cthulhu without these things. But I counter the question with a question - How likely are you to achieve horror without these things?

Same things goes with humor, for games like Paranoia, or Toon. Being *funny* is a significant part of the point of playing. Do you want to try to be funny without putting consideration to how you present the material?

I think that horror is tough, honestly.....I don't know if trying to establish a spooky mood through language often works in RPGs. I think it can, for sure. I think it tends to help when there's already some kind of content that's unsettling in some way.

As for humor, while I've never played Toon or Paranoia, there are always lots of laughs in my group's RPG sessions, and most of them are due to spontaneous comments more than any kind of craft.

But I think this also kind of raises a good point.....what about a player in such a game who just isn't that funny? Maybe they love humor, and enjoy comedy, but just aren't that great at being funny themselves. Or aren't that comfortable with it? What about a player who doesn't have a strong sense of theme or mood in fiction? Do these players not enjoy the game as much as other players? Are they not playing as well?

Are these skills essential in some way to RPGing?

Umbran said:
I don't see a particular need to make the generalization, to be honest. We could speak about particular moments during play, when we could say that one perhaps should take precedence over the other. But, I don't at this point see much value to be found in proclaiming that, over play in general, one is (or should be) predominant. But, I'm game to hear some ideas.

What do we gain, in our consideration of our hobby, from proclaiming one over the other?

I think that some of the comments in this thread have been enlightening, when it's not been sidetracked by argument. Some of the questions you and I are discussing now are very interesting to me. I feel like I get a better understanding of games and gamers. As someone who has primarily played with some iteration of the same dozen or so people over the years, I like to get views beyond my own. I think my group is pretty typical in many ways, but sometimes I learn that we may not be all that typical.

Ultimately, what's to be gained with any analysis? Those who accept the OP's premise may be able to focus their efforts on what they think is essential to RPGing. Those who don't accept the premise, perhaps can see an area they usually don't focus upon.

Sadras · May 28, 2019

Lanefan said:
My assumption - silly me - was that the underlying content would be the same in both examples and thus the comparison is merely one of how that content is presented and which presentation is more engaging.

XP for this.

However on the issue of wordcraft, I do not think it is useful in this debate to include such a liberal interpretation of the word.

Umbran · May 28, 2019

darkbard said:
Uncritical advocacy may not add anything at all. But critical analysis and discussion can help sharpen the focus of what separates the activity of RPGing from other endeavors.

So, we'd get to more clearly divide Them from Us?

I've generally held that RPGs are a genre of games. Genres *don't have* sharp definitions. They have very fuzzy edges, defined by inclusion rather than exclusion. This does not impede critical analysis - it merely means that analysis requires a bit of subtlety and consideration.

Sadras · May 28, 2019

hawkeyefan said:
Ultimately, what's to be gained with any analysis? Those who accept the OP's premise may be able to focus their efforts on what they think is essential to RPGing. Those who don't accept the premise, perhaps can see an area they usually don't focus upon.

And the author of the OP?

lowkey13 · May 28, 2019

*Deleted by user*

hawkeyefan · May 28, 2019

lowkey13 said:
TBH, I stopped seriously commenting ages ago on this thread as I made my points that were necessary- but saw the last comment by the OP (after being mentioned by a few people) that I emphasized; that is to say, when someone is asserting (making the argument) that there TTRPGs have a certain point, or that a certain mode (framing, say) is prioritized for emotion engagement over other modes (narration, for example), that does carry a negative implication about other ways of playing. There's a distinction between the following:

A. My group plays like this, and it works for us because ...

B. My view is that TTRPGs should be played like this, because the point of TTRPGs is ...

Both of these are opinions, but one is an opinion that is descriptive (this is how we play, and it works), and one is descriptive (this is how TTRPGs should work). And I think people tend to pick up on the latter- but, then again, on the internet people argue over everything anyway.

Sure, one is a more polite to make the statement, but they pretty much say the same thing. I attribute the choice made to the desire to spark a conversation, which it did, but it also sparked another, which became the bigger one of the two.

lowkey13 said:
Personally, I think that Paranoia (and other humor-based RPGs) is the best example, because humor is the type of thing that can't really be done well just be framing, and, instead, really requires certain techniques, tone, and narration.

But in terms of CoC, I don't think it would be impossible, but I think it would be lacking. In other words, there are numerous RPGs out there to play. IMO, choosing to play CoC presupposes that the group playing it wants to play a certain way; which will involve mood.

It's not impossible to have a good session without leaning heavily on narrative elements (by the DM and the players), but I would say it is very hard to have a good CoC game without leaning heavily, and perhaps there are better games to play.

In essence, it is hard to generate horror without these elements, and it is even harder with certain types of horror (gothic, cosmic). IME, those who choose to play those genres are playing because of the narrative elements.

Sure, I think that the game you choose to play has a huge impact on the experience you'll have, and that most groups are going to try and choose a game that matches what they're going for.

I've played a good amount of Call of Cthulhu (and its iterations) over the years. I've enjoyed quite a bit of it. I don't know if I've felt fear or horror more than a few times.

lowkey13 said:
It's a shorthand crutch, but I can certainly understand why people use it; after all, I make the same jokes other people do about Scottish Dwarves.

But ... just because everyone isn't Mercer et al., doesn't mean that there aren't techniques people are using (to a greater or lesser extent) even when using more plain-spoken, conversation elements. There are so many different ways of expressing yourself; I think that people are unfairly tarring "performance" or "narrative techniques" with baggage it doesn't deserve.

Sure, I agree. I use such elements in my game. I would expect most games do, although some may play more of a focus on it than others.

lowkey13 said:
I don't think that's a correct question. It's like asking, "Are the visuals more important than the movie?"

No, of course not. But visuals are a PART of the movie. A major part. Sometimes, the visuals are intense and stylized. Sometimes, they are drab. Sometimes, they are so mundane to barely even qualify for the term "visuals," and yet, they are still a part of the movie.

See I think it's an utterly interesting question. See my comments to Umbran about David Lynch, and similar filmmakers. His use of the medium seems to take precedence over any traditional sense of story, I'd say.

lowkey13 said:
Different groups will emphasize different parts of RPGs at different times. A group that plays an optimization-heavy, grid-combat focused D&D in a conversational style is unlikely to emphasize the same aspects of the game as does a group that is playing a ToTM one-shot of Paranoia. And yet, both of these are equally valid, and equally fun, for the participants.

The narrative elements from the players and the DM are part of the game; sometimes the most important part, sometimes a lesser part, but always a part. And to go back to the original point (re: evoking emotion), I would continue to say that these narrative elements and techniques from both the players and the DM are often crucial for the evoking those emotions.

Sure, I think they can be powerful tools. I just think that more often, what engages me about a game is the decision point that's put forth rather than how it's put forth, and the mood that's been established for it.

hawkeyefan · May 28, 2019

Lanefan said:
In its writing? Not often. Maybe some WotC 4e modules such as Keep on the Shadowfell - the presentation in some of those make them seem like they'll play better than they actually do. (no I don't run 4e but I have converted several of its modules for my own game). B-10 Night's Dark Terror is another such - it reads much better than it plays, as I've twice now learned.

So the narrative quality of those seems a detriment in this case. Like a junker with a fresh coat of paint.

Lanefan said:
But I have seen the reverse: good content made bland (or much harder to use) by poor presentation. Some DCCRPG modules are like this for me - great ideas but the presentation (usually involving their terrible arthouse style of mapping) ruins it.

As presented at the table? Hells yeah. As a player I've been through many adventures where, in hindsight, an analyst would look back and think "You know, that was a fairly bland-and-boring adventure based only on what was in it" but in fact it was roaring fun to play through due in very large part to how it was presented by the DM and in much smaller part to what the players did with - or to - it.

But is this a question of clarity? Like the information isn't clear? Or is it more that the information is presented in a dry nd straightforward manner? Because I think clarity of information is a bit beside the point of narrative quality.

Lanefan said:
My assumption - silly me - was that the underlying content would be the same in both examples and thus the comparison is merely one of how that content is presented and which presentation is more engaging.

Well since the OP was making a comparison between the narrative quality of information presented versus the relevance of information presented, I used an example of each of those.