Here's the way that I'm used to discussion working:
Person A makes an assertion, explaining what s/he has in mind as best s/he can, ready to elaborate and defend if necessary.
Person B makes a reply - perhaps agreeing, perhaps disagreeing, perhaps distinguishing some point, etc. If person B is unsure about what was said by A, s/he asks for clarification.
Etc.
I'm not used to the idea that Person B can try and rebut Person A by picking up some term used by A, interpreting it differently, and on that basis disagreeing with something that A never said. (That is the
equivocation that has been mentioned upthread.)
As Person A in this particular thread, here are the key claims that I made, in the OP and then not much later downthread:
This is a conception of RPGing that, I believe, you disagree with - eg when you suggest that you would quit a game, on the grounds that it's boring, if the GM didn't deploy evocative language.
Which would be fine. However, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], your points got buried under fifteen tons of extraneous text that I think most people skipped over.
And, despite REPEATED requests that you clarify what "literary", "literary quality" and "wordcraft" and various other words you've tried to toss into the mix, you've never actually sat down and defined what you mean by these terms in a way that folks in the thread understand what you're on about. I mean, what does "literary quality of that narration" actually mean? Since, apparently, it's a pretty nebulous thing. It might be using certain words, or not, it might be the length of the description, or not, it might be how the speaker speaks, or not. No one actually knows because, again, despite NUMEROUS calls for you to clearly define what you mean, you absolutely refuse to do so.
And, so, this thread circles around and around and around, with accusations of "equivocation" and "moving goalposts" and whatnot and unfortunate referrals to dictionary definitions because, AGAIN,
you will not actually define your terms.
You agree that the DM has to narrate the situation, but, claim that the quality of that narration doesn't matter, but, at it's root, that's demonstrably false. A narration that is confusing, for example, matters. So, the quality DOES matter. You claim that performance doesn't matter, but, again, that's demonstrably false. Someone who speaks too quietly to be heard, as an extreme example, is obviously going to make the session not enjoyable.
So, where do
you draw the line? Can you give a clear example of what you mean? An example where you can describe a sitatuation using no "meliflous" language, no analogies, or metaphor or any literary technique whatsoever? We've had a few examples proposed before, but, you've been strangely reticent to show examples despite being very forthcoming with actual play examples in the past. So, how do you hook the players into a situation in a game where they have zero context for what your talking about, by only describing the situation using nothing but plain, conversational English and no references to any in-game elements. The reason no in-game elements is because those elements have been described to the players by the game itself using literary techniques.
Again, how do you distinguish that 5 hp orc from that 5 hp goblin?