Is RPGing a literary endeavour?

Lanefan · May 30, 2019

hawkeyefan said:
Yeah, narration is always needed, I agree....I'm just kind of sidetracking here....if a game has a mechanic that somehow represents the character is angry, or scared, or confused....does the GM need to try and convey those ideas as strongly through narration? Especially if they're clearly defined terms with mechanical implications, such as the results of failing a save versus dragon fear or being subject to a confusion spell in D&D.

If it's an NPC or an opponent, by and large yes. If it's a PC I'd say it's on the DM to narrate the basic effect ("You prove unable to resist the dragonfear this time") and then it's on the player to somehow convey how that looks to the others present e.g. does the character cower down into a little ball, or stand there shaking and babbling, or back away more or less quickly, or flee screaming, etc.

Lanefan · May 30, 2019

hawkeyefan said:
You had mentioned imagination, and I'd agree. I added buy in or willingness. What else can we list as core to the RPG experience?

Beer.

Maxperson · May 30, 2019

hawkeyefan said:
Yeah, narration is always needed, I agree....I'm just kind of sidetracking here....if a game has a mechanic that somehow represents the character is angry, or scared, or confused....does the GM need to try and convey those ideas as strongly through narration? Especially if they're clearly defined terms with mechanical implications, such as the results of failing a save versus dragon fear or being subject to a confusion spell in D&D.

Yes, narration is still needed. Take the attack system in D&D. The DM just saying, "You hit and it took 12 damage." is really boring. Narration of the combat and attacks makes it much more interesting. Even a simple, "You bring your sword down and slice the goblin in half." is much better.

Maxperson · May 30, 2019

Lanefan said:
Beer.

I think you meant bacon.

Bedrockgames · May 30, 2019

Maxperson said:
Yes, narration is still needed. Take the attack system in D&D. The DM just saying, "You hit and it took 12 damage." is really boring. Narration of the combat and attacks makes it much more interesting. Even a simple, "You bring your sword down and slice the goblin in half." is much better.

I certainly wouldn't usually say "You hit and it took 12 damage", but people can and do play the game that way. I've been in great campaigns in fact where people played that way, and it was just very focused on the mechanical details. It is still an RPG if the GM is doing that. And any honest definition of roleplaying games needs to account for the that this is how some people engage the game. A bit of flavor and color is also good, but if it has no mechanical heft (either through a ruling or through an existing mechanic) is is just kind of fluff the GM is putting on as a veneer. At the end of the day, many players can imagine 'you hit and it took 12 damage' just fine. Some can imagine it better than if the GM is trying to paint an image.

One issue I would take with your example, is I wouldn't want the GM to narrate that to me just because it is cool, if my attack was unexceptional. I would hope the cutting it in half was at least the product of a critical hit. Do like it when you get that sort of thing. I just want a description like that to be earned and reflect something substantive in the game that is going on.

Maxperson · May 30, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
I certainly wouldn't usually say "You hit and it took 12 damage", but people can and do play the game that way. I've been in great campaigns in fact where people played that way, and it was just very focused on the mechanical details. It is still an RPG if the GM is doing that. And any honest definition of roleplaying games needs to account for the that this is how some people engage the game. A bit of flavor and color is also good, but if it has no mechanical heft (either through a ruling or through an existing mechanic) is is just kind of fluff the GM is putting on as a veneer. At the end of the day, many players can imagine 'you hit and it took 12 damage' just fine. Some can imagine it better than if the GM is trying to paint an image.

One issue I would take with your example, is I wouldn't want the GM to narrate that to me just because it is cool, if my attack was unexceptional. I would hope the cutting it in half was at least the product of a critical hit. Do like it when you get that sort of thing. I just want a description like that to be earned and reflect something substantive in the game that is going on.

If a goblin has like 3 max hit points(say a 1e-3e goblin) and you just did 4 times it's entire hit points in one swing, I can see cutting it in half without a crit. Overwhelming damage should be able to take the place of a critical in my opinion.

lowkey13 · May 30, 2019

*Deleted by user*

hawkeyefan · May 30, 2019

lowkey13 said:
Well, the issue is generally that of exceptional diversity within what can be considered RPGs. So when you list what is "core" to the RPG experience, you either end up with a descriptive definition that will cover all of what we consider RPGs, but could likely cover things that many people would consider "not RPGs," or more restrictive (and, perhaps, prescriptive) definitions that are under-inclusive, and would leave things out.

With that aside, there is some "core" there; when people say they are playing a Role Playing Game, that has a generally understood definition that separates it from, say, Monopoly or Darts. So what is that? Better people than me have tried to answer this, and explain why LARPing and D&D and Fiasco are recognizable as RPGs, yet we instinctively know that other things aren't.

Part of it is in the term itself- RPGs require two things to begin with.

1. Role playing.

2. A game.

A game without role playing (however defined) isn't an RPG; it can be, inter alia, monopoly, but it's just a a game.

And role playing without some "game" aspect can be fun, or therapeutic, or a great Theater 101, but it's not an RPG either.

So, there has be some type of interaction between players, and/or between players and an adjudicator (referee, GM, whatever).

There are rules, formal, informal, or both.

There is a divide between the players and the game world (the diegetic framework - the difference between what is true in the game and real life).

...within those parameters, often more particularly described, you can find the "role playing" (players and diegetic framework) and the "game" (adjudicator, rules).

....all of which is hopelessly vague. But it is the only way I can think of to encompass what we are discussing. From there, you can more to describe things with more particularity. Does this make sense?

It does make sense, yes.

So, to summarize, so far it seems we have 4 required elements that may apply to all RPGs.

1. Imagination
2. Willingness/buy in
3. Role play
4. A game (some agreed upon set of rules)

Are there any others? Would premise or situation fit on the list? Or setting?

Do all 4 of the above actually pertain to each example of RPG that we can think of?

lowkey13 · May 30, 2019

*Deleted by user*

hawkeyefan · May 30, 2019

Hussar said:
Um, I do disagree here. Most early modules were pretty bare bones as far as content. Go to this place, kill everything there, take the treasure, go home. Not a whole lot of other stuff going on really. Whether it's Against the Giants, or Slave Lords or Isle of Dread, there just isn't much content at all. Mostly dungeon crawls filled with static encounters (yes, yes, there's more, but, I'm painting with a broad brush here).

But, it was the presentation that really drove these things. Whether it was the art packets in modules like Tomb of Horrors, or fantastic cover art, or some pretty interesting descriptions of different situations - bree yark and all that.

I mean, heck, we've got sites like Canonfire for Greyhawk and Candlekeep for Forgotten Realms for a pretty good reason - all that flavor stuff. We've got thousands of pages of setting guides that give virtually no actual adventure situations, just descriptions of an area. Inspirational for adventures, sure, but, not adventures themselves.

Pathfinder has built an entire line with Golarian based on the notion that presentation matters. Half of the material they put out for each adventure path is setting background. I'd say that the literary is pretty darn important to the hobby.

But, since we're apparently not allowed to talk about RPG elements using literary criticisms, we are then forced to create entirely new ways of discussing how we play RPG's.

There isn't much content but there isn't a lot of presentation, either. They're pretty spare all around. They're basically 8 to 12 pages of often poorly written details about an adventure location, with some artwork of varying quality. And while I agree that some of the art is great, and really helped the product overall, the reason why I'd give content the edge is because in those early modules, it was the game and the experience itself which was engaging people. It was an entirely new hobby.

Setting guides and wiki-type sites are something else than the modules you were talking about, though. They essentially encompass those modules and more. And I don't know if I'd say that they offer no actual adventure situations.....I'd say that's a big part of what they're for.

The back half of PF adventures is mostly flavor meant to enhance the adventure, sure.....but which do you expect is ignored more often? If those two parts were split into separate products, which would you expect to sell more? In my experience with those products, the backmatter is largely forgettable.