Is RPGing a literary endeavour?

Aldarc · Jun 6, 2019

Sadras said:
This is not a great argument to engage in mostly due to the clash of definitions and clarifications which generally us squabblers fail to agree on, everytime.
Literary endeavour, wordcrafting, and now probably primary, if it has not been already battled over.

Furthermore I fail to see what can really be gained from such a debate (and I know I have somewhat asked this before), besides XPs from one's usual supporters.

I attempted to summarize and steer the conversation back to pemerton's premise in his OP. But it seems like people are arguing not about what he said, but misconstruing what he said so they can argue imaginary point. And, yes, equivocating on the meaning of "literary" has been a part of the frustration that people like Bedrockgames and I have had with people criticizing pemerton's argument. Even now, you can see this in Hussar's argumentation, much as Maxperson's before him, an attempt to essentially argue that everything is literary (or define it in an overly broad way) and use that to claim ergo that TTRPGs are a literary endeavor. I don't think that people are fairly representing pemerton's argument.

Sadras · Jun 6, 2019

Aldarc said:
I will address your earlier post, but I will shortly say here that this entire conversation has never been predicated on the presumption that constant immersion was required for TTRPGs or should be required. So it feels like you are moving the goalposts by requiring extra standards to be met.

Sure I'm not pushing for additional standards, was just stating a preference to Max.

In a game where the players provide much content I imagine evocative language by the DM is not of primary concern, so the OP is correct about his style of roleplaying, hence we find ourselves engaged in another debate about content generation but this time the angle is literary endeavours in RPGs.

The goalposts are the same, but now we are on a clay court.
Grass, astro turf, cement and a few others have already been covered.

lowkey13 · Jun 6, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Aldarc · Jun 6, 2019

Hussar said:
So, your putative conversation is going to be nothing but modern references and not a single bit of "flowery language"? Githyanki are green space aliens, like Romulans only with swords?

Is this another new goalpost?

I'm pretty sure that the four poeple, while they've never played D&D before, have been exposed to enough genre fiction and other media that they have a fair bit of context.

But not necessarily the literary text of D&D. The point being is that the cognitive context for this TTRPG is informed by the entirety of a person's experiences within a culture. This does not make TTRPGs a literary endeavor simply because D&D has literature. If you want to claim that D&D's associated literature is literary because it is literature, then you have only successfully argued a truism.

I really don't think I'm underestimating anything. I've spent far, far too long dealing with non-native English speakers who do not share our culture to take any description for granted. Every single reference you've made presumes a native English speaker (or near native anyway) with a deep grounding in western Judeo-Christian culture. As soon as you lose that background, none of your allegorical explanations are going to work.

I believe that you are underestimating many things. I'm not a novice to literary discussions or living abroad. I work in ancient literature, with multiple dead languages, and applying some cognitive linguistics for my research. I live in Austria and surrounded by non-native English speakers. Sure, they have a deep grounding in western Judeo-Christian culture. However, our conversation has NEVER been contingent on whether participants have a shared grounding or not. You are also speaking of a huge corner case. I suspect that most people who sit together to play TTRPGs will share a sufficient cognitive background that will enable the contextualization of game play through a shared cultural vocabulary. It has NEVER been contingent on whether or not evocative language is ever used or not. It has been about whether TTRPGs are a literary endeavor, the function and nature of GM/player narration, and how this ties into the TTRPG play experience. Suggesting otherwise is most definitely moving the goalposts of pemerton's argument.

Imaro · Jun 6, 2019

I'll ask again, since I was pointed to an article about how hard "literary" is to define (and yet here we are discussing the poorly chosen word in relation to rpg's)... is there an agreed upon definition of literary for this thread... otherwise how can anyone discuss something without agreeing upon its meaning?

Edit: so far all I've seen is various things being disqualified as "literary" oh and for some reason extraneous length seems to be popular with one side as one of its characteristics... but can someone post exactly what literary in this discussion means???

Sadras · Jun 6, 2019

Aldarc said:
I attempted to summarize and steer the conversation back to pemerton's premise in his OP. But it seems like people are arguing not about what he said, but misconstruing what he said so they can argue imaginary point. And, yes, equivocating on the meaning of "literary" has been a part of the frustration that people like Bedrockgames and I have had with people criticizing pemerton's argument. Even now, you can see this in Hussar's argumentation, much as Maxperson's before him, an attempt to essentially argue that everything is literary (or define it in an overly broad way) and use that to claim ergo that TTRPGs are a literary endeavor. I don't think that people are fairly representing pemerton's argument.

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.

@pemerton viewed wordcraft to be more reflective, so as not in the spur of the moment (during roleplay).
That is a tricky position to take but understandable. At minimum then my backstory has wordcraft. But the question is what if I write my NPC dialogue prior game time? I would then argue it is not a requirement and I would agree it is not a primary concern in RPGs (for me and at least for the RPG I know). Then I would agree with Pemerton on this.

BUT wordcraft, even if generated on the spur of the moment, is important for many gamers for that immersive experience. And that IS a primary concern for me as a player and DM.

And then we get to content generation, but I have already covered that in a previous post.

hawkeyefan · Jun 6, 2019

Sadras said:
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.