Is RPGing a literary endeavour?

hawkeyefan · Jun 3, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
How can you ignore the biggest RPG and the one most associated with RPGs in a discussion about defining RPG and its key elements? That doesn't make any sense at all.

I’m not ignoring D&D. I’m just approaching from another point. D&D will undoubtedly enter the discussion (I mean, it already has, no?).

Bedrockgames said:
Yes, any working definition of what television is, would have to include Network TV at that time. Obviously TV can change, and obviously you can still speak of outliers in the definition. You just can't put outliers at the center of a descriptive definition.

What I hoped for was a starting point that didn’t exclude any game classified as a RPG (with the notable and aforementioned exception of computer/video games). The definition I want...or more specifically the list of attributes...would certainly not exclude D&D.

Bedrockgames said:
I don't even know why you say this. This isn't about being afraid of D&D. This is about any honest assessment of what RPGs are has to account for D&D and how it is played.

You’ve misunderstood. I didn’t say “be afraid of D&D”. I simply meant we shouldn’t worry about D&D not getting focus simply if we don’t begin with it as our starting point. As you said, it’s inescapable.

Tony Vargas · Jun 3, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
. So, which comes first, the GM or the RPG?

Obviously, the wargaming role of 'judge' came first.

Then Chainmail presumably had judges, too, leading to D&D calling them 'DMs,' and fairly quickly being recognized as the first in a new sort of wargames, the Role Playing Game. Additional RPGs followed.

Later, GM was adopted as a generic, system-independent analog of DM.

We still deal with expectations that GMs should act like judges.

hawkeyefan · Jun 3, 2019

Maxperson said:
No. Rotation is a circle and I'm not saying they become GMs in a circular manner. It does go player 1 is GM, then player 2 is GM, then player 3 is GM, etc. The players are stepping into the GM role in a non-circular manner.

I fail to understand how that’s not a rotation. But perhaps that’s not the best word for it, so I’ll rephrase.

There’s no change in role during the game among the participants. There’s no shift from player role to GM role and back. I’m sure such games exist, but that’s not how these particular games function.

Maxperson said:
As a player you can only experience fun of being a player. As a GM you can only experience fun as a GM. In a game where you step into and out of the role of GM for some aspects of the game, you are experiencing "some of the fun of GMing."

This isn’t a correct understanding of the way the games function. I’ll stick with Microscope as it’s the one I’m more familiar with. What you can do as a player in Microscope has no such division. It’s not a matter of “for this part of the game you’re like a player, and for this part of the game you’re like a GM”.

What Ben Robbins meant in his quote was that players of Microscope get to enjoy elements of an RPG that are typically held only by the GM.

Maxperson said:
It's not my definition. The existing definition of GM fits.

Way to not address the question. And although I think it’s arguable, I’m tired of semantics, so I’ll reword the question for you. It’d be cool if you don’t dodge it again.

What is your claim? Is it that Fiasco and Microscope aren’t RPGs? Or is it that GMless RPGs don’t exist because of the definition of GM?

Hussar · Jun 3, 2019

Heh, I think I'll drop this in the pond and see where it ripples.

I've been cogitating the whole "literary" thing and I think I had a bit of an epiphany. It goes back to my example of the Vengaurak, many pages ago. Basically, I posted a couple of descriptions, one in modern jargon, and one in more "gamey" sort of speak to describe a monster from the Scarred Lands setting. It was [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s reaction that led me to my current feeling of epiphany. He replied, and I'm paraphrasing here, "so what? Why should I care about this monster?"

And, really, he's right. Without context, that monster is just a stat block and a picture. It's no different or more engaging than any of a thousand other monsters that have graced the pages of D&D over the years when it's removed from context. But, see, that's where the literary aspect comes in - building context. World building, while certainly not limited to the literary, is a primarily story telling element. We don't do world building in a conversation. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] talked about how getting a letter from a relative has a viceral element and it's true, it does. But, that's because it's part of the real world and all the context is built right in. In a second world, you need to create that context for the reader, or, in the case of an RPG, the player. And, you create that context through literary conceits like world building.

A Vengaurak matters to a Scarred Lands player because Vengaurak are the spawn of the terrible titan Gaurak and we care about that because the setting posits that the Titans were these terrible beings that destroyed and remade the world multiple times before the gods rose up and destroyed the Titans. The current setting is a sort of post-apocalyptic place where the Titans war is only a century or so in the past and everyone is trying to rebuild. But, and this is a key element of the setting, the titans and the gods both created different races and different races sided with either the titans or the gods in the Titans war and finding a way to reconcile differences is a major part of the setting. Now, a Vengaurak is a mostly mindless eating machine as befits something spawned from the blood and effluents of the Glutton Titan, Gaurak.

So, right there, that's where the context comes. We care when we see ten kobolds on the hill because we've gamed so long that we KNOW what that is. We don't need it spelled out because it's been spelled out to us many times before. But, when you take away that familiarity that comes with gaming for far too long, suddenly the literary becomes a lot more important. It's the literary - world building, setting construction, theme, trope - (and yes, that's not limited to the literary, but, just because other story telling media use the same conceits doesn't make it any less literary) - that builds that context.

Imagine sitting down to play a Call of Cthulu game if you knew nothing about the Mythos and had never seen a horror movie or read a horror story. Or a game about chivalric knights if you knew nothing about King Arthur or European court mythology. Imagine you were to sit down to play an RPG where you were Ainu living in Yayoi era Japan (something I presume most reading this know little to nothing about) and the DM refused to set the scene because the DM refuses to use any literary techniques. All just pop culture references and modern language. How engaging would that game be?

Just like [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] said, why should the player care about a Vengaurak without any context?

Maxperson · Jun 3, 2019

hawkeyefan said:
I fail to understand how that’s not a rotation. But perhaps that’s not the best word for it, so I’ll rephrase.

There’s no change in role during the game among the participants. There’s no shift from player role to GM role and back. I’m sure such games exist, but that’s not how these particular games function.

Yes it is. There are player functions and GM functions, and the players do both, which makes them GMs part of the time.

This isn’t a correct understanding of the way the games function. I’ll stick with Microscope as it’s the one I’m more familiar with. What you can do as a player in Microscope has no such division. It’s not a matter of “for this part of the game you’re like a player, and for this part of the game you’re like a GM”.

It may not spell it out as such, but the players do engage in functions that are GM functions, not player functions. That makes them GMs for that period of time, which is how they can, to quote the game designer, "experience fun as a GM."

What is your claim? Is it that Fiasco and Microscope aren’t RPGs? Or is it that GMless RPGs don’t exist because of the definition of GM?

Well, I thought that was obvious from like pages ago when I said that GMs are required to play RPGs, even if the duty is shared by the players at the table. I said it multiple times, so I figured I didn't need to repeat myself. There's no need for a dedicated GM in a game, but there must be people acting as GM at points during the game in order for the RPG to function.

uzirath · Jun 3, 2019

Hussar said:
Heh, I think I'll drop this in the pond and see where it ripples.

I'm glad you did. It rippled over to my canoe where I have been pondering some related ideas.

Imagine you were to sit down to play an RPG where you were Ainu living in Yayoi era Japan (something I presume most reading this know little to nothing about) and the DM refused to set the scene because the DM refuses to use any literary techniques. All just pop culture references and modern language. How engaging would that game be?

Just like [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] said, why should the player care about a Vengaurak without any context?

I'm largely with you here. Context is important if you want fictional elements to have emotional resonance. If you're departing from well-known genre territory, you need to build that context into the game so that it becomes familiar. This can be all the GM's job or it can be shared by everyone (collaborative world building).

I'm not sure it is necessarily literary or not, but despite the title of the thread, that's not what's been most interesting to me about the conversation. Whatever we call it, though, I do think that it is fairly important. Maybe it's not strictly necessary for some playstyles? Not sure about that.

As for my own pebble, I've been thinking about some comments that appeared some pages back (around page 90, I think) regarding the importance of evocative descriptions in the game. Instead of just calling out die rolls and watching the hit points go down, it's helpful to describe the action from the perspective of the characters. I tend to agree with this. As I've mentioned in this thread and others, I play a lot with new players. I've found that the descriptions are usually what hook new people, especially in combat. Missing your attacks repeatedly can be pretty frustrating, so I make a point of describing what happens with each miss. Subsequently, I encourage players to come up with these descriptions. This makes combat much more engaging and seems to help keep people focused. Indeed, some of those descriptions have been memorable enough to become part of the character's lore, talked and laughed about for many sessions afterward.

I am going to preemptively point out, though, that I am not suggesting that this must be a universal requirement of RPGs. Even for me, when I'm playtesting an adventure, I dispense with all of that. I'm just interested in seeing the mechanics at play. I could see that mode (what I consider "playtest mode") being a fun game itself, without the added texture. (Which I would deem more cinematic than literary.)

I don't know how this all fits in with where we're at in the thread, but it was one of those pebbles that just wanted to be tossed.

hawkeyefan · Jun 3, 2019

Maxperson said:
Yes it is. There are player functions and GM functions, and the players do both, which makes them GMs part of the time.

There’s no GM.....so all functions in this game are player functions.

Something typically being a GM function doesn’t make it always so. Different games assign these functions to different roles.

For instance, in Blades in the Dark, the player decides what relevant action to use when he wants his character to try something. In D&D, the DM would listen to the player’s stated goal, and then come up with a relevant action, like “okay make a Perception roll to see if you notice anything”. But in Blades in the Dark, the player decides which action is relevant.

By your stance, the players in Blades are sometimes the GM. Seems odd to me.

I’d think that it’s a given game that determines what the role of the GM is rather than the term itself.

Maxperson said:
It may not spell it out as such, but the players do engage in functions that are GM functions, not player functions. That makes them GMs for that period of time, which is how they can, to quote the game designer, "experience fun as a GM."

That’s not what he said, though. He said “In a way the entire process of playing Microscope brings the fun of being a GM and building a world to the table and makes it part of play.”

He’s describing an element of RPGing (worldbuilding) that’s traditionally reserved for the GM and how Microscope makes that element the focus of the game.

Maxperson said:
Well, I thought that was obvious from like pages ago when I said that GMs are required to play RPGs, even if the duty is shared by the players at the table. I said it multiple times, so I figured I didn't need to repeat myself. There's no need for a dedicated GM in a game, but there must be people acting as GM at points during the game in order for the RPG to function.

If it was obvious, I wouldn’t have asked. So you’re saying GMless RPGs don’t exist. Gotcha.

Maxperson · Jun 3, 2019

hawkeyefan said:
There’s no GM.....so all functions in this game are player functions.

Were that true, they could not enjoy the game like a GM. They could only enjoy it like a player. And it's not even true. The DM in 5e is also a player, so if your logic were correct, there would be no GM for D&D, either. He's just a player with some different player functions.

Something typically being a GM function doesn’t make it always so. Different games assign these functions to different roles.

If that's true, then there's no such thing as a GM function in any RPG. Just different player functions, with one guy getting player functions the other players don't get.

aramis erak · Jun 3, 2019

Hussar said:
ROTFLMAO.

Oh, goodie, we're right back to swirling around the rabbit hole of what does "literary" mean. Yay. See, folks, this is why this thread is 50 pages long, and you can talk about [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] being clear with what he meant all you like, but, this is about as clear as mud.

REH is "literary"? Seriously? A minor genre author who wasn't good enough to actually publish a novel and is virtually unheard of outside of genre circles is "literary"? CONAN qualifies as literature?

For a man who you seem to think sucked, he spawned an IP that's 8 decades old, still selling the original stories, plus additional stories written with the originator's permission, and then, after his death, by even more authors, crossed into all other media, created a cultural icon, and the stories of his and his friends L. Sprague DeCamp and Lin Carter building on his foundation, all of which are still available...

Howard may not have published a novel, but he's had more success as literature than my grandmother (whom I'm fairly certain you've never read her 1 publish novel from the 1930's), who rightfully should be forgotten... her biggest claim to real fame was working as a hollywood society reporter in the 1940's. The majority of her work as a writer is credited to others, as she ghost wrote for many veterans in Veterans Voices.

REH has spawned further literature. My grandmother wrote more, got a lot of it published, even published a novel.... but was not imitated, was no inspiration.

(And my grandmother's novel? Drivel. one of three books from the decade with the same title... Well worded, erudite drivel. Technically well done, but unmemorable.)

And let's not forget: Conan is one of the key inspirations of D&D. Not as strongly as Vance's Dying Earth, but still, Conan actually has underground adventures to go in and kill badguys.

Howard is mentioned in some college survey courses... if nothing else, for his being a correspondent with HPL, but often for his own contributions to the pulp fantasy fiction.

Hussar · Jun 3, 2019

aramis erak said:
For a man who you seem to think sucked, he spawned an IP that's 8 decades old, still selling the original stories, plus additional stories written with the originator's permission, and then, after his death, by even more authors, crossed into all other media, created a cultural icon, and the stories of his and his friends L. Sprague DeCamp and Lin Carter building on his foundation, all of which are still available...

Howard may not have published a novel, but he's had more success as literature than my grandmother (whom I'm fairly certain you've never read her 1 publish novel from the 1930's), who rightfully should be forgotten... her biggest claim to real fame was working as a hollywood society reporter in the 1940's. The majority of her work as a writer is credited to others, as she ghost wrote for many veterans in Veterans Voices.

REH has spawned further literature. My grandmother wrote more, got a lot of it published, even published a novel.... but was not imitated, was no inspiration.

(And my grandmother's novel? Drivel. one of three books from the decade with the same title... Well worded, erudite drivel. Technically well done, but unmemorable.)

And let's not forget: Conan is one of the key inspirations of D&D. Not as strongly as Vance's Dying Earth, but still, Conan actually has underground adventures to go in and kill badguys.

Howard is mentioned in some college survey courses... if nothing else, for his being a correspondent with HPL, but often for his own contributions to the pulp fantasy fiction.

Heh, thing is, I love Howard. Read it a bunch of times. But, literature, as in the sense that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is meaning it? Not even close. Sorry, but, Conan is not literature. Note, that Star Wars novels have been widely read, but, again, not going to call that literature either. If "literary" includes pulp adventure stories, then, yeah, it's a pretty wide open definition of "literary".

See, I can ask my Japanese students if they've ever heard of Moby Dick, and quite a few of them have. I can ask them if they've heard of Shakespear, and, yup, they'll be familiar with it. I mention Conan and the only response I will ever get is a 10 year old boy that solves crimes.

This, in Japan, is Conan:

anime_font_b_detective_b_font_font_b_conan_b_font_case_closed_font_b_edogawa.jpg

So, if the definition of "literary" is "stuff I like" then, well, let's talk about that. If it's literary as in "high art" then let's talk about that. But, this endless circling around the rabbit hole and shifting the goalposts isn't getting anywhere. Of course, as this quote is digging pretty far upstream in the thread, I think we've move past this.