Is RPGing a literary endeavour?

Aldarc · Jun 4, 2019

Imaro said:
Yeah where somehow you dictating cheese pizza for everyone is more inclusive of those who only eat pepperoni pizza because... reasons?? Still not convinced.

I said who preferred eating pepperoni. That said, I am certain that if anyone who preferred pepperoni salami pizza genuinely believed that they were being unfairly excluded from a group ordering a cheese pizza when there are people with vegetarian, halal, or kosher diets present, then that person is probably a rude, self-centered dick who should be excluded though for reasons other than their pizza preferences.

Here is what you said:

Can yo have a narrative without any type of wordcraft? If not wordcraft is at some level necessary.

Now, here is what pemerton actually wrote:

pemerton said:
But I don't think the literary quality of that narration is important.

His position was NOT that you can have narrative without wordcraft or that wordcraft isn't necessary, but that "the literary quality of that narration is [not] important." And I said as much when I summarized his OP.

Imaro · Jun 4, 2019

Aldarc said:
I said who preferred eating pepperoni. That said, I am certain that if anyone who preferred pepperoni salami pizza genuinely believed that they were being unfairly excluded from a group ordering a cheese pizza when there are people with vegetarian, halal, or kosher diets present, then that person is probably a rude, self-centered dick who should be excluded though for reasons other than their pizza preferences.

LMAO... you're really equating preference of little to no wordcraft with having life threatening allergies, religious belief systems and so on... this is really getting absurd... and I'm the one creating fallacies??

Aldarc said:
Here is what you said:
Now, here is what pemerton actually wrote:
His position was NOT that you can have narrative without wordcraft or that wordcraft isn't necessary, but that "the literary quality of that narration is [not] important." And I said as much when I summarized his OP.

See and this is where it gets silly because "quality" as used here is never defined. Again as @Hussar said earlier if we are talking Shakespearean prose then we're all in agreement... but then it begs the question why start a thread about something so obvious and well uninteresting? What's the point if this is what you meant and why not just state it as such without all the back and forth.

EDIT: On another note can anyone link a definition of literary quality that is objectively measurable, from a reputable source and widely accepted?

Aldarc · Jun 4, 2019

Imaro said:
See and this is where it gets silly because "quality" as used here is never defined. Again as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] said earlier if we are talking Shakespearean prose then we're all in agreement... but then it begs the question why start a thread about something so obvious and well uninteresting?

I don't think that we necessarily have to go to a high end of prose quality to say that the wordcraft quality of GM and PC narration is not of primary importance. But again, I think that pemerton wanted to emphasize what he regarded as more important for the "participation in the creation of fiction":

What matters to me is that the players feel the significance of the situations the GM describes - that they feel the pull to action, and the threats of inaction. That is, that the situation engage and motivate the players as players, not as an audience to a performance. And player narration should, in my view, engage with and build on this fiction in ways that display the player's view of the fiction

This it say that GM narration should not treat players as passive recipients of their narration, but instead inform the player of the stakes.

What's the point if this is what you meant and why not just state it as such without all the back and forth.

This is why I have been frustrated by the back and forth - and my question about why you chose to engage that one point in my summary - because it was stated in the summary of the argumentation in pemerton's OP. It was even the first sentence of my summary:

In my reading of the OP, pemerton does not believe that the "literary quality" (i.e. wordcraft) for the narration of situations performed by GMs (to which players respond) matters, or at least should be regarded as a secondary nature. Instead, pemerton appears to be arguing that what matters most is that the stakes of the fiction are understood such that players can properly perform their duties as players who participate in the fiction.

You are welcome to go back and read my summary. I can assure you that it is all there.

darkbard · Jun 4, 2019

Imaro said:
EDIT: On another note can anyone link a definition of literary quality that is objectively measurable, from a reputable source and widely accepted?

I did you one better. Earlier I linked to an examination by Terry Eagleton, a leading literary theorist, on why the discipline of literary studies itself wrestles with the impossibility of an acceptable universal definition of literature/literary. Did you read it?

dco · Jun 4, 2019

No unless talking is now a literary endeavour.

Campbell · Jun 5, 2019

Attitudes and expectations matter. I am fine with role playing that aims higher in the literary sense or is more casual. What is fundamental to me is that we are all involved in the process as creative peers and everyone's contributions are valued equally. Also that everyone is expected to contribute. Also that contributions move play forward and demand action from other players (GM included).

Lanefan · Jun 5, 2019

Aldarc said:
It can (for some people) but I don't think that the quality of narrated wordcraft is fundamentally necessary to initiate a campaign. Companies hire advertisers to get people to buy the product. If people are already sitting down to play your TTRPG campaign, then they have already "bought the product" (i.e., playing the game).

Well, not yet they haven't. All they've done at this point is shown interest and, in effect, said "show me more".

That said, if they keep coming back to subsequent sessions of the same game then yes, they've bought it.

Whether or not they will continue playing is something else entirely, but reasons for why they may disengage will vary from person to person and table to table.

True; and one of those reasons could well be the quality of the DM's narration. Is it flowery or is it dumbed-down? (too much of either could send players packing) Is it understandable? (at a con game once I had a DM who, either through his accent or a mild speech impediment - not sure which - I found nearly impossible to understand) Is it informative and-or relevant to what's going on in the fiction?

Maxperson · Jun 5, 2019

Aldarc said:
(1) This is something of a false equivalence though. It's about like saying that ordering a cheese pizza for those who don't like pepperoni salami or who have vegetarian, halal, or kosher diets then we are being exclusionary for those who want pepperoni salami on their pizza. Sure, they may like or prefer the taste of salami, but the ordering of one pizza over another are not equal positions. And I don't think that quality wordcraft narration of the GM should be deemed an essential requirement for running TTRPGs.

You are excluding people who want pepperoni, though. As for equality, that's subjective. What makes what a vegetarian wants more important than what I want?

As for your example, it's not a false equivalence at all. The below set-up works equally well with the one you went with.

(1) Less Requirements for Game Expectations (having or not having Wordcraft doesn't matter) > (2) More Requirements for Game Expectations (with Wordcraft)

Not everyone will necessarily run their games with (1) so expecting or demanding (1) excludes those who run their games as (2).

The reality, though, is that nobody is excluded with either set-up. Since group 2 is running their game with their preferred method, it doesn't matter what group 1 expects or demands. Group 2 is still running their game with their preferred method.