Is RPGing a literary endeavour?

Lanefan · May 29, 2019

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

And, again, occasional lack of clarity...see below...

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.

Clarity is one part of what makes a good presentation good. Narrative quality is another. Good underlying material to present is a third, but it's the least necessary of the three. There's some old Judges' Guild modules that signally fail at both clarity and NQ (and even when the achieve clarity, they often present the most evocative material in a dry - even wry - manner).

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.

Ah.

I still think the better comparison would be between two presentations that include the same content. Having either version leave out relevant content is clearly going to skew perception in favour of the other: we've all (I think) noted and agreed that content is important*, so once we reach that baseline the question then becomes how to present said content in order to make it engaging, evocative, emotional, or whatever else you're going for in that particular situation.

* - saying that content is important by no means says or implies that content is everything, more that it can't be ignored completely.

Lanefan · May 29, 2019

hawkeyefan said:
This is interesting and to me it brings up a question....how much do the existing mechanics matter in relation to narration being a vital component to the game? If there are mechanics that try to emulate these things, is narration less needed?

Short answer: narration is still needed just as much, but here its work is more to translate those table mechanics into fictional events that the imagination can then work with and the players/characters can then react to and-or interact with.

Lanefan · May 29, 2019

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

Somewhat, yes. Plot is what's in place ahead of time, and-or is the framework. Story is what results from building on this framework (said 'building' in a typical RPG would be the simple act of playing the game).

Plot-ahead-of-time isn't always necessary for a story to result, but once it has it'll still look in hindsight like the plot was there all along even if it wasn't.

hawkeyefan · May 29, 2019

lowkey13 said:
Once you have the very basics, every things else is optional.

I hate to snip so much of your interesting post....but I think I agree with most of it, and it can be boiled down to this bit above. What are the basics? Are there any that would apply to all of the myriad games you cited? Or most? Most is probably the best that can be hoped for. I think this is what [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] and [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] have touched on.

You had mentioned imagination, and I'd agree. I added buy in or willingness. What else can we list as core to the RPG experience?

hawkeyefan · May 29, 2019

GrahamWills said:
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:

That's a great example, and I can understand why it was so compelling for you.

Would you say that it was the prose itself that made it so deep for you? You say that the content and the mechanics of the game itself were not to your taste, so that's how I read it....but I don't want to assume that I get all the nuance.

Would you say that this was a compelling experience as a game? Or more like experiencing a work of art? Were you invested in the play?

GrahamWills said:
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.

Yeah, I think this has a huge impact on the discussion for sure. [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] mentioned LARP, and that obviously has some significant differences from most other RPGs, despite also having similarities. I've played Microscope on a few occasions, and I've found that to be fun, and I think that the effort the group put forth was interesting and evocative....a literary endeavor....but I didn't really feel like I was playing a game as much as I do with most other RPGs.

hawkeyefan · May 29, 2019

Lanefan said:
Short answer: narration is still needed just as much, but here its work is more to translate those table mechanics into fictional events that the imagination can then work with and the players/characters can then react to and-or interact with.

Yeah, narration is always needed, I agree....I'm just kind of sidetracking here....if a game has a mechanic that somehow represents the character is angry, or scared, or confused....does the GM need to try and convey those ideas as strongly through narration? Especially if they're clearly defined terms with mechanical implications, such as the results of failing a save versus dragon fear or being subject to a confusion spell in D&D.

Umbran · May 29, 2019

hawkeyefan said:
Yeah, narration is always needed, I agree....I'm just kind of sidetracking here....if a game has a mechanic that somehow represents the character is angry, or scared, or confused....does the GM need to try and convey those ideas as strongly through narration?

Picyune thing - "need to" is strong. Absolutes probably don't serve us very well. We don't "need" to do anything. We don't "need" to use d20s to play D&D.

But, most of us would *recommend* it, right? We'd say using a die is better than pulling numbered chits form cups, for example.

So, if a game has a mechanic that somehow represents the character is angry, or scared... *should* the GM try and convey those ideas as strongly through narration?

My answer to that is Yes, the GM should try. Why? In this particular instance, while you do have the mechanic that enforces it... those mechanics are ones that reduce player agency. The narrative helps the player buy in to that for the moment, by giving them a plausible in-character reason to play along. If, for example, in narration, I make it abundantly clear that the character's perceptions are of the room spinning to the point of nausea, the player might accept the confusion more deeply, and play along with it more in action choice - especially if they are not "a numbers person" who easily sees the impact of mechanical issues outright.

lowkey13 · May 29, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Hussar · May 30, 2019

Aldarc said:
snip

If we were talking about literature,* then we would be talking about foreshadowing as a literary technique in literature. If we were talking about film, then we would be talking about foreshadowing as a cinematic technique in film. If we were talking about TTRPGs, then we should be talking about foreshadowing as a roleplaying technique in TTRPGs.

Now some people in this thread think that TTRPGs are literature and so it is applicable when discussing TTRPGs to refer to these features and techniques in TTRPGs as literary techniques. I don't think that TTRPGs qualify as literature.* They have different forms of associated literature (e.g., rulebooks, character sheets, GM notes, etc.), but I don't think that we can speak of them in any general sense as literature. Cinemas, video games, radio, theater, and television have already recognized that their storytelling is distinct from conventional literature due to the unique pecularirities of their respective media. Video games are younger than TTRPGs but even 12-year-old boys on the internet have likely heard that video games engender unique storytelling experiences distinct from other forms of media. The video game industry (including scholarship and consumers) is having a conversation about its storytelling as medium that TTRPGs should be having.

* Pick whatever definition you want for "literature" here. I don't care. There are three prominent definitions: wordcraft, high art, and anything written. My point would still be applicable to each. Just don't accuse me of shifting the goal posts for engaging other people's definitions that they have provided.

If you want to reference my position or respond to my post in this thread, then I request the basic courtesy of showing evidence that you have bothered to engage it beyond with some depth and fullness.

But, isn't this tautological? It's only a "literary technique" if we are talking about literature. Doing the exact same thing in film makes it a cinimatic technique?

Then fair enough. I totally agree with you, based on that definition. RPG's share nothing with literature, since, as you say, creating literature and playing an RPG are different. Since they are different activity, and nothing from one activity can be compared to another activity since doing the same thing in another activity automatically (somehow) changes that activity to something completely different, then, sure, of course, RPG's aren't literary.

I'm not exactly sure how, say, foreshadowing in cinema is particularly different from foreshadowing in literature, but, ok. Cool. We agree. As soon as you change from one medium to any other medium, it is impossible for there to be any similarities. They are totally different activities based on whatever medium you are using.

See, once you actually define your terms, I'm pretty agreeable. I totally see your point and 100% agree with you.

Hussar · May 30, 2019

hawkeyefan said:
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.

Um, I do disagree here. Most early modules were pretty bare bones as far as content. Go to this place, kill everything there, take the treasure, go home. Not a whole lot of other stuff going on really. Whether it's Against the Giants, or Slave Lords or Isle of Dread, there just isn't much content at all. Mostly dungeon crawls filled with static encounters (yes, yes, there's more, but, I'm painting with a broad brush here).

But, it was the presentation that really drove these things. Whether it was the art packets in modules like Tomb of Horrors, or fantastic cover art, or some pretty interesting descriptions of different situations - bree yark and all that.

I mean, heck, we've got sites like Canonfire for Greyhawk and Candlekeep for Forgotten Realms for a pretty good reason - all that flavor stuff. We've got thousands of pages of setting guides that give virtually no actual adventure situations, just descriptions of an area. Inspirational for adventures, sure, but, not adventures themselves.

Pathfinder has built an entire line with Golarian based on the notion that presentation matters. Half of the material they put out for each adventure path is setting background. I'd say that the literary is pretty darn important to the hobby.

But, since we're apparently not allowed to talk about RPG elements using literary criticisms, we are then forced to create entirely new ways of discussing how we play RPG's. :uhoh: