Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

*Deleted by user*

Umbran said:

I'm saying it may not be much of a dichotomy in may cases because the *how* is not cleanly separable from the what. Or, the how is part of the what.

To take an example that will probably mean something to most of us here. John Williams' score for the Star Wars movies. Those pieces generally stand on their own, and communicate things without the movie. I dare folks to claim that those musical pieces are not content, in and of themselves. The presentation of Star Wars would not be the same story if it had, instead, music by... Abba, say.

Click to expand...

That's interesting. The score does indeed stand on its own. I don't know if it communicates much without the connotations of the film.....certainly the Imperial March makes us all think of Vader and Stormtroopers. By itself, it certainly has a foreboding element to it, though.

Your phrasing next seems a bit odd to me....."the presentation of Star Wars would not be the same story"....I don't think I agree. The story would be exactly the same. The presentation would indeed change. How much of an impact that has would depend on what Williams's score was replaced with.

If it was the Benny Hill song or Abba, as you suggest, then yeah, that would not be good. But what if there was no score? Or what if the music that replaced the score was just fine, or even better?

Regardless, the story itself would remain the same.

Umbran said:

I certainly think sometimes, yes.

Lowkey may be averse to LARP, but I am not. In one game for which I was a routine NPC, the resurrection of dead PCs went through an afterlife. Within the afterlife, the "what" was incredibly simple - interact cogently with one of the NPCs for long enough, and we'd give you a card that would allow you to leave. The *how*, was everything. The large, open, darkened space that echoed conveniently. The masks we wore. That we spoke cryptically in ways the PCs thought meant things (they didn't). No PC ever failed to get resurrected, but they didn't know that failure was nigh impossible to do. People actively avoided death in combat in large part because we made the afterlife anxiety-inducing. Our "how" influenced the "what" of PC choices.

Click to expand...

I also admit to having little to no experience with LARP. I feel like it's almost the exception that proves the rule, in a way....as if LARP is the idea of RPG as performance taken to its furthest.

That's not in any way a criticism....just an observation.

Umbran said:

So, at the cross section of horror and humor... I used to help run a very large, very long session of Paranoia each year.

We could have said, "The Production, Logistics, & Commissary citizens feed you some gross food." Instead, when dinnertime for the players came around, we tossed them baggies filled with shredded bologna in mustard with red food coloring, cooked spaghetti with chocolate sauce, and other foods that were actually entirely wholesome, but just looked nasty, or had weird textures.

Which do you figure would drive players to actually take action against each other to get choice bits - the words, "some gross food" or the *actuality* of gross food that they're expected to actually eat?

Click to expand...

I don't know, honestly. It certainly sounds gross. I probably wouldn't eat it to be honest....but then that's probably why I don't LARP. For those who've bought in, yes, being presented with an actual physical element versus imaginary would likely be more meaningful.

Umbran said:

Well, that sounds like "willing, but without skills". In D&D, there are classes that are mechanically more simple than others (like, say, a typical fighter) that can be used until such time as the player learns somethings. Analogously, comedy has a role of the "straight man", who is kind of essential, but doesn't need to be quite so high-speed creative.

Well, then we find another game they are comfortable with. Not all games are for all people, and that's okay.

Click to expand...

I would try and adjust to make allowances for different kinds of players. I have a friend who is terrible at Cards Against Humanity. Her answers are always tame, and we always know which are hers. But she loves the game. She gets a kick out of other people's responses and she loves to guess who said what.

I don't think she needs to find another game. I don't expect you'd say so, either.

Umbran said:

Change it from RPGs, to soccer - a game without all this presentation nonsense, right? What about the player who's a middle-aged guy, who's gone a bit round in the middle, can't run very fast or far. Are they not playing as well? Are they not enjoying the game as much?

Within RPGs - take the person who really doesn't have a flare for mechanics, and can't optimize their way out of a paper bag. Are they not playing as well? Are they not enjoying the game as much?

Click to expand...

Well, soccer is a competition, so that does make it different. A person may enjoy the game and be horrible at it, for whatever reason. Depending on the circumstances and how seriously others take the game, that may or may not matter.

There are many people on these boards that have indeed taken the stance that those who don't optimize, especially those who intentionally sub-optimize, are actively bringing their team down. Now, I think this is nonsense.....but some of your comments seem to be leaning more toward that way of thinking than I would have expected.

Umbran said:

Whether or not they enjoy it as much probably mostly depends on whether they are in with people with the same general skills and desires out of play. The middle aged guy, playing in a pro game, probably won't enjoy it much. Playing with the other dads and moms in a neighborhood league, however, may be loads of fun.

But, let us be honest - most of us as GMs are not Tolkien or George RR Martin. Most of us are not professional writers or actors. We are not the soccer equivalent of Beckham. The learning curve isn't all that steep.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree....obviously expectations and shared goals are the big factor here.

And about not everyone being Tolkien or Martin....absolutely. Which is why I think the focus on the narrative quality of the game is maybe not as essential as many are saying. We can all mostly achieve what is acceptable without needing to be very performance oriented.

Hussar said:

I’d argue that most classic dnd modules fall in this category. Most are straightforward dungeon crawls with little or no interesting content beyond kill and loot.

Yet, how they are presented have made them classics. Bree yark and various Gygaxisms. Otis artwork. All that sensawunda stuff that folks go on about.

Click to expand...

That's interesting because I'd say they are almost the exact opposite. They're pretty bare bones in their presentation.....little pamphlets with minimal production value. Their content though....that's basically what sparked the whole hobby.

Maxperson said:

There is no "real point" to RPGing. If your view is that there is One True Way to play the game, you are wrong. It's that simple. It doesn't matter if that it's an opinion. It's still an opinion about the One True Way to play the game.

Click to expand...

Not really. The fact is that there can be an answer, it's just that it will very likely be different for each of us. It's not about one true way so much as "this is what I enjoy most out of this hobby" or "this is the part of the game that I love the most".

Maxperson said:

Has anyone even argued that it's more important? I've seen people argue that it's present in all RPGs. I've seen people argue that it's equal to content. I've seen people argue that it's important, but less important than content. I don't recall anyone saying it's more important, though.

Click to expand...

That's what I'm asking. Is there anyone who would place the presentation or performance above the content? If so, why?

hawkeyefan said:

Your phrasing next seems a bit odd to me....."the presentation of Star Wars would not be the same story"....I don't think I agree. The story would be exactly the same. The presentation would indeed change. How much of an impact that has would depend on what Williams's score was replaced with.

Click to expand...

Ah. Let me ask a question. Do you differentiate between "story" and "plot"?

I do. In this context a plot is a series of events. You can take one plot, put emphasis or de-emphasis on elements by way of different genre conventions, and get two different stories. One plot can be rendered as, say, both an action-adventure story, or a noir mystery - different stories.

*Deleted by user*

Imaro said:

Cant this be claimed for almost anything .. case in point... I dont think character relevant/specific content (mainly the type [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] puts forth earlier in the thread) is necessary for the rpg medium (andmight run counter to certain styles of GMing and play, such as beer & pretzels or games where exploration of the world is the focus).

Edit: in other words rpg's are so varied, playstyles are so varied and DM styles are so varied is there anything specific that can be applied to all??

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I could answer, but your question, [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], is definitely a question worth asking. But we can also find tremendous diversity in video games, film/television, and other media as well. Presumably it's the experience of participatory roleplay conjoined with mechanical processes to create shared fiction that binds everything together. Everything else are probably bells and whistles. What are your thoughts?

Imaro said:

Cant this be claimed for almost anything .. case in point... I dont think character relevant/specific content (mainly the type [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] puts forth earlier in the thread) is necessary for the rpg medium (andmight run counter to certain styles of GMing and play, such as beer & pretzels or games where exploration of the world is the focus).

Edit: in other words rpg's are so varied, playstyles are so varied and DM styles are so varied is there anything specific that can be applied to all??

Click to expand...

I think it can be applied to many things people put at the center. I do think there are a handful of key features worth debating as 'central' to gaming. But I do think those things would need to be shared over an honest & descriptive, rather than prescriptive, definition of RPGs. That isn't easy to do. I would much rather we talk about RPGs as people actually play them, than as we would want them to be, or as an ideal on a page. And once reason I am so skeptical of the boxed text and 'example of play' approach is because those tend to be so idealized.

hawkeyefan said:

Is there anyone who would place the presentation or performance above the content? If so, why

Click to expand...

I'm going to take the example of BLUEBEARD'S BRIDE, which is a roleplaying game that I purchased and has been run for me twice. For both the actual run games and the material itself, I find the presentation/performance a more enjoyable component than the content. here is my reasoning:

First, the quality of the materials is beautiful. The physical artifacts feel wonderful, are made of interesting materials, paper and cloth bindings. The font is refreshing and clear and the page layout and overall graphic design is a joy. The illustrations are fantastic. I know this is not the "vocal" presentation, but it's not that different a propositions -- there are some games (both roleplaying and board) where the presentation is a huge draw. Conversely, some systems are presented in so ugly a fashion that I cannot enjoy them. I -- and I am sure I am not alone here -- have several game books that I never intend to run and don't really care about the mechanics, but I bought because their presentation is phenomenal.

I understand this thread is about literary presentation, and I'll get to that, but I think it's important to acknowledge that as a general rule, people may like games more for their presentation than for the content. It's true for board games, it's true for video games, and it's try for roleplaying games.

If we put aside the physical presentation and look just at the content, here is an example of the text (from the BOOK OF ROOMS):

When you run your hand over the strange box, it emits a soft wail. The closer your hand wanders to the antenna, the higher the pitch. As the instrument’s wail grows louder, crying out like a woman in pain, it contorts into the shape of a woman’s torso. Her breasts are mutilated, intestines strung up and tied around her neck, and crimson blood pours onto the floor and mats her flaming red hair. The musical notes laid into the marble floor take on an eerie glow. The screams inten­sify and a dark power surges through your veins. Insects fly from the instruments with a cacophony of sound, forming a swirling mass around you—the eye of the storm

I strongly assert that the literary quality of the presentation is far more important than the actual content. Paraphrasing it as follows is simply a far lesser experience:

The box makes a crying sound when you touch it. The pitch gets higher the closer your hand is to the antenna. When the crying becomes loud, the box changes shape into a woman’s torso with mutilated breasts and intestines strung up and tied around her neck. At that time, blood comes from the box and flows through her red hair. The musical notes in marble floor glow strangely. Then the crying becomes a scream and you feel dark power surging in you. Insects fly loudly from the instruments , swirling around you but not actually touching you

If the book was like that (and that's not actually BAD -- just not GOOD) I would never read it. If the content were different, but the style the same, I would enjoy it. Presentation is more important than content.

Now, moving on to the at-table experience, where I was run through a session and we didn't actually use any material except character sheets. The actual content of the game was trivial. Nearly every scene has the same content and the same resolution. The only thing that differs is the presentation. Further, the mechanical content to resolve actions is based on a system I actively dislike for its content. So the content itself is trivial; the mechanics I dislike. The only thing that I enjoy is the presentation. So when I say that I thoroughly enjoyed it, it's not just that the presentation helped, but that it was by far the most enjoyable part -- 90% or more was the sheer ability of the GM to present descriptions and perform as the inhabitants of the story.


In summary then, visual presentation is clearly highly important and often more important than content to many people in roleplaying games as in video and board games. The literary quality of the content is, at least for me, a deciding factor in whether I enjoy a roleplaying artifact. And for some types of games, the performance of the GM and players is the single reason to play a game -- a weak presentation will make the game meaningless.

------------------------------

An aligned thought:
It occurs to me that the games where I most value presentation over content are games focused on personal drama (as opposed to resolving procedural action). It may be that people who only play procedural games don't feel the need for presentation as much. Certainly when I play D&D it's nowhere near as big a draw for me as when I play Fiasco, DramaSystem, Indie one-shots, Bluebeard's Bride or the like.

Umbran said:

Ah. Let me ask a question. Do you differentiate between "story" and "plot"?

I do. In this context a plot is a series of events. You can take one plot, put emphasis or de-emphasis on elements by way of different genre conventions, and get two different stories. One plot can be rendered as, say, both an action-adventure story, or a noir mystery - different stories.

Click to expand...

For a work in progress, sure, I would agree. For a completed work, I think it would be much more difficult to achieve. Replacing the score in Star Wars with Abba would indeed undermine the tone that it's going for. But would it make the movie a comedy? We may laugh at the result, but I don't think that makes it a comedy.

I suppose that's really beside the point, though, since what we really want to talk about is RPGing....and in that sense, yes, I would agree that the decisions of what to emphasize and what not to emphasize would influence the game.