I agree it does not help to use the word literary in such a broad manner, despite technicalities, I already addressed same with Max.
My only engagement in this thread has been about the the use of wordplay for the immersive experience as well as the backstory I might create for a campaign which I might view the latter as an literary endeavour.
@
hawkeyefan, he can correct me where I misrepresent him, does not see such exercise as a literary endeavour.
I'm not entirely convinced of this but I'm not opposed to this either, mostly because, I have not yet clearly defined what a literary endeavour is in my mind. The high art definition is easy, but is it anything more AND IF YES, where does it stop?
Conan? The Three Investigators? Gamebooks? Comics?
Because at some point I'd inject my backstory into that mix. There are characters with motives. Internal Consistency exists. There is a setting, a theme. There is no dialogue though and that is probably where I could agree then, it fails as a literary endeavour if literary endeavour requires at the very minimum, dialogue.
Honestly, I probably have a pretty liberal view on what would constitute a literary endeavor. I think world building and backstory for characters and all those things fall into that category. Sure, those are more preparatory to creating a story, but still a part of it. And I think that RPGs are sufficiently creative to qualify. If something captures the imagination, then I'd likely consider it literary. The quality of its literary merit may be another discussion entirely....but not everything is meant to be or is trying to be
Finnegan's Wake.
I think that my stance in this discussion is more in line with @
pemerton's stance described in the OP. In that, he specifically talks about the literary quality of the narration provided by GMs and players, and how important that is to play when compared to motivating players through the content of the fiction. I think because of the straightforward title of the thread, many disagree, but looking at the more specific point in the OP, I absolutely understand it.
I think the real question is if such literary ambition has a place in RPGing, and if so what that place may be. And by ambition I mean as it relates to the original point;
the attempt by a GM or player for their narration to have artistic merit beyond simple communication. That they are not simply attempting to convey information, but that they are doing so with an attempt to convey that information in a creative manner. I think reducing "literary quality" to basic clear communication or establishing context ignores the attempt at craft which is key to the original point, and renders the discussion meaningless.
So, does literary ambition...or the strive for literary quality in narration, belong in RPGing? I would say it has a place, certainly. For me, the answer to the question in the title of the thread is "yes". But....is that place more important than the role of engaging players through the content? That to me is the more interesting element of the conversation.
Is it more important that a bit of narration offered by the GM makes the players feel compelled to act, or that it makes them smile because of its cleverness or creativity?
And as I've said before, I know that these things are not always mutually exclusive, but I think it's an interesting question to examine and to answer. For me, I think the compelled to act element is generally more important because we are playing a game, even though it is a game that is also a creative endeavor. Will I from time to time try to narrate something in a clever or creative way? Absolutely.
But of the two approaches, I think one is generally more meaningful to the activity at hand.