So rarity of word use makes something literary? I don’t agree with that at all.
The description isn’t a bad one by any means. Again, this goes back to “non-literary does not equal bland”. All it attempts to do is describe the creature to the players.
What about the elevator example that you snipped? What did you think of that?
If the description itself contained attempts at creativity or art, then I think that’s what would be an attempt at literary quality.
To put it another way, let’s say two kids ride their skateboard to the store, a few blocks from where they live. One kid simply rides there, avoiding hazards and navigating the streets and sidewalks and all the obstacles. Still takes skill, right?
The other kid makes the same trip but includes a bunch of tricks along the way....he ollies from the curb over a pothole and railgrinds along the back of a bench and does a bunch of kickflips and so on.
Both kids make the same trip, both trips still require skill, but one is straightforward....the destination is all that matters. For the other, how the destination is reached is just as or probably more important than the destination.
Actually, if you don't mind, I'm going to stick with the Githyanki example because it hits pretty much exactly the point I'm trying to make.
Remember, the basic point is we're comparing "literary" (for a given value of literary) to
conversation . Which, that allows for a more objective comparison because we know, or at least have a pretty good idea, of what is considered conversational English and what isn't. While it might not be up to New Yorker standards, your Githyanki example is very much outside the realm of conversational English.
By and large, about 95% (or a bit more actually) of conversational English is made up of about 5000 words. ((It's actually closer to about 98%)) To give a good comparison, the New York Times generally hits about 93% of the first 2000 words and about 99% of the first 5000. So, if your sentence contains words outside of those first 5000, you are already outside the realm of conversation.
Now, here's the quote again:
“The creature you see is humanoid, taller than the average human, and gaunt. It has leathery yellow skin, sunken eyes, and a rictus grin. Its armor is of a style you’ve never seen before. It wields a great silver sword that shines even in the near darkness. The creature scans about for signs of enemies. It does not appear to have noticed you, but it soon may. What do you do?”
That's, by my count, 72 words. Of those 72 words, 6 do not appear in the first 5000 word list (COCA Corpus), "humanoid, gaunt, leathery (although leather does, so, you might count that one), sunken, rictus, wield). So, 10% of your words would almost never appear in any normal conversation. That places you at a higher complexity than the New York times. Also, your choice of words - wield, gaunt, scans for signs - are all geared towards evoking specific responses from the audience. This isn't conversation English. We use words like "wield" in fantasy novels. It's telling that you say "scans for signs" not "looks".
This is a perfect example of how RPGing is not conversational and stripping the higher language out of the descriptions would result in a flat, boring experience. "The human shaped person, taller than average, is thin. It has rough, yellow skin and bags under its eyes and a scary smile. It's armor is of a style you've never seen before. I has a great silver sword that is shiny in the low light. It looks around for enemies. It does not look like it has noticed you but, it might soon. What do you do?"
That's a lot less evocative than your first paragraph, but, is far closer to conversational English.
The 1e DMG is still held up as the epitome of RPG writing. And that's as far from conversational English as you can get.
