Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

hawkeyefan said:

So in this case, the attempt to use more evocative language, for the GM to set the scene more fully, actually serves as an obstacle to play? Is that what you’re saying?

Click to expand...

Me: It's not the language. It's the length.

You: So you're saying it's the language?

C'mon man.

You can attempt to use more evocative language with a much shorter description. It doesn't have to be multiple paragraphs to be evocative.

I’d have thought it would be number 2 simply because of the possible presence of the player’s stated goal for his character. But I can see your point as well.

Click to expand...

You could have put the man with the eye patch in #1 as well, though, and my answer would still be the same.

pemerton said:

That's not my experience. You could perform your dwarf - reciting old bits of lore from the dwarvish halls, complaining about the quality of the local ale, remarking on the state of your beard, swearing oaths "by the Mountains of Moradin", etc - while all the while the game rolls of the GM's "plot wagon" much as it would if you were performing an elf instead.

I've lived through this. (Though I was playing a version of a Teutonic Knight rather than a dwarf.)

Click to expand...

You use a different definition of protagonist than most of us, though. We use the definition of, "Main character in a story." With that definition, as long as the DM's plot wagon rolls on with your PC as a main character, your character is a protagonist.

I don't think boardgames have protagonism. They just have players.

Click to expand...

They don't have protagonism, because they don't have a story.

Maxperson said:

You use a different definition of protagonist than most of us, though. We use the definition of, "Main character in a story." With that definition, as long as the DM's plot wagon rolls on with your PC as a main character, your character is a protagonist.

Click to expand...

The concept of "protagonism" in RPGing is (I believe) relatively well known.

If it's unclear what I have in mind, here's the relevant remarks from the OP:

pemerton said:

What matters to me is that the players feel the significance of the situations the GM describes - that they feel the pull to action, and the threats of inaction. That is, that the situation engage and motivate the players as players, not as an audience to a performance. And player narration should, in my view, engage with and build on this fiction in ways that display the player's view of the fiction, perhaps challenge other players (and even the GM), that make the other participants go "I didn't see that coming!"

Click to expand...

If (to further self-quote) "the game rolls off the GM's 'plot wagon' much as it would if you were performing an elf instead" of a dwarf, then the things I've described aren't happening - the player's narration clearly is not engaging with and building on the fiction in ways that display the player's view of it, and certainly is not challenging the GM and making him/her go "I didn't see that coming!"

Maxperson said:

I never said it did.

Click to expand...

Okay.

This is a true dichotomy. Either you don't care about the narrative literary quality, in which case you are okay with dull descriptions, or you do care about it.

Click to expand...

Wait, you just said you didn't say this. Just because something is literary doesn't mean it can't be dull. A dull description is a dull description, not a non-narrative literary description. Caring about whether a description is dull, doesn't mean you care about it being a narrative literary description.

And you don't have to be thinking about literary quality to care about it. It only requires that you want descriptions that are not dull.

Click to expand...

No, this is just wrong. Something can be of very high literary quality and be dull. Something can be of terrible literary quality and be exciting. Caring that your descriptions are not dull, just means you care that your descriptions are not dull. It doesn't mean you care about their literary quality. Also, if you are not thinking about something when it would be very relevant, literally not giving it a thought, I'd say you don't particularly care about it in that respect.

Are you okay with all of your descriptions being dull?

Click to expand...

I don't want to be bored listening to the GM or the bore my players talking. But this has more to do with length of description in my opinion. But I don't particularly care if my descriptions are in themselves exciting. Like I am not interested in crafting words that impress on paper if that is what you are asking.

Maxperson said:

You use a different definition of protagonist than most of us, though. We use the definition of, "Main character in a story." With that definition, as long as the DM's plot wagon rolls on with your PC as a main character, your character is a protagonist.



They don't have protagonism, because they don't have a story.

Click to expand...

This is probably getting into territory where people really start to disagree (whereas now we've just been arguing about the quality of GM description). I know I am likely an odd man out here but I don't think story is a necessary component of an RPG. Granted it is pretty clear many of us define story differently. But just going back to my point about equivocation: story has several meanings. It can mean, among other things 1) stuff that happened (which most people would agree RPGs always have, 2) fictional or dramatic narrative (which I think some RPGs have but not others), 3) A plot that follows a literary structure and tackles literary themes (which again some RPGs have but not others). The problem is when these conversations around 'how we should be gaming' and people advance a definition like 1, which you kind of have to accept, then equivocate to say RPGs should be good example of 2 and 3. Just to be clear here. I am not saying RPGs can't have story, or that they are not RPGs if they involve 2 or 3, I am just saying not every RPG has to have story, and some avoid stories in the sense of 2 and 3. This does matter because it is relevant when talking about what makes a good session or adventure of an RPG. Someone who is expecting 2 or 3 is going to be terribly frustrated in a free-form old school sandbox. Someone who doesn't want 2 or 3 is going to be frustrated by a game with more focus on story, character arcs, etc. I think people often dig their heels too much on these issues, and don't try things outside there comfort zone, which is a shame. But just speaking to the should and ought aspect of design and play, I think this is a key area of equivocation to be aware of in order to have a good faith discussion about these playstyle differences.

Maxperson said:

Me: It's not the language. It's the length.

You: So you're saying it's the language?

C'mon man.

Click to expand...

First, as someone who’s taken the idea that dialogue is a literary technique and then leaped to the conclusion that all spoken word is therefore literature, you might want to not condescend.

Second, I’m not saying it’s the language, although that’s part of it. I’m saying that the attempt to be more descriptive gets in the way in this case.

Maxperson said:

You can attempt to use more evocative language with a much shorter description. It doesn't have to be multiple paragraphs to be evocative.

Click to expand...

I would agree. This is why I also think that placing the focus on the fictional situation is more important.

Do you tend to run more published material or your own? Do you tend to read narration boxes and scripted material more or do you just narrate off the cuff?

Maxperson said:

You could have put the man with the eye patch in #1 as well, though, and my answer would still be the same.

Click to expand...

That would have defeated the purpose of what I was trying to show with the example....although it would have perhaps shown something else.

hawkeyefan said:

Do you tend to run more published material or your own? Do you tend to read narration boxes and scripted material more or do you just narrate off the cuff?

Click to expand...

I think this is a key point. I don't think either of them run more published material than off the cuff material. But I do think there is a much different approach to taking inspiration from the form and structure of published material. Where I am coming from here is basically saying, I don't personally find it helpful to use things like boxed text as a model for communicating with players. The way of talking that Hussar and Maxperson are in favor of, seems very boxed text inspired to me.

Bedrockgames said:

I think this is a key point. I don't think either of them run more published material than off the cuff material. But I do think there is a much different approach to taking inspiration from the form and structure of published material. Where I am coming from here is basically saying, I don't personally find it helpful to use things like boxed text as a model for communicating with players. The way of talking that Hussar and Maxperson are in favor of, seems very boxed text inspired to me.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I’ve come to that conclusion myself. Most of my games contain more homebrew material, but I have incorporated a couple of 5e adventures into our campaign as well. Most recently with Tomb of Annihilation. Sometimes the boxed text was fine; I read it and it worked. On a few occasions, I’d even go so far as to say that it helped set the mood. But more often than not, I think it got in the way, especially in the later part of the adventure when the PCs enter the Tomb. At that point, the adventure becomes much more of an old school procedural dungeon crawl, and as such, I think clarity is more important than creative language. I found myself having to repeat or reword the entries so often that I just started giving the essentials as a bullet list up front (dimensions, main features, inhabitants, etc.) and then more descriptive elements afterward.

For me, it was a definitive point. Combined with the fact that my next bit of GMing was for Blades in the Dark, where there is no boxed text and the game is meant to be much more conversational (yet no less evocative) I don’t expect I’ll rely on boxed text anymore. If I ever decide to run a published adventure again for D&D, I’ll just paraphrase or provide my own narration.

I honestly am having a difficulty of following the obfuscated use of "literary" in this thread. At times it seems equated variously with "text," "anything written" (not to be confused with 'text'), "narrative/story," "oral performance," "anything spoken/conversation," etc. The goal posts keep getting moved and obscured for the sake of claiming that whatever transpires in RPGs is "literature" or "literary." I can definitely sympathize with why [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] is frustrated by all of the equivocation that transpires in trying to justify RPG as literary.

I will say that attempting to claim TTRPGs as a literary endeavor shortchanges what makes TTRPGs unique as a storytelling medium. Yes, there will be overlap between TTRPG storytelling with literary storytelling, oral storytelling, performative storytelling, cinematic storytelling, video game storytelling, etc. Why? Because stories often follow patterns in human culture but many of these media are exceptionally new to human civilization (e.g., film, TV serials, comic books, video games, etc.), and we are only beginning to unravel how they are distinctive from prior modes of literature and theater. And I think that attempting to claim TTRPGs as a form of literature or as incorporating literary techniques (which some seem to equate to broader storytelling techniques) is attempting to turn TTRPGs into something that they are not.

Bedrockgames said:

Wait, you just said you didn't say this.

Click to expand...

No. It's subtle, though, so I'll explain it. What I just said was that if you don't care at all about literary quality of narration, you are okay with everything being dull, not that it will be dull. If you don't care, then dull narration doesn't bother you. If dull narration DOES bother you, you care about the quality. I wasn't saying literary narration was all or nothing, which would be a False Dichotomy.

No, this is just wrong. Something can be of very high literary quality and be dull. Something can be of terrible literary quality and be exciting. Caring that your descriptions are not dull, just means you care that your descriptions are not dull. It doesn't mean you care about their literary quality.

Click to expand...

It's the improved literary quality that makes them not dull. So if you prefer not dull, you do in fact care about the literary quality, even if you refuse to admit it to yourself.

I don't want to be bored listening to the GM or the bore my players talking. But this has more to do with length of description in my opinion. But I don't particularly care if my descriptions are in themselves exciting. Like I am not interested in crafting words that impress on paper if that is what you are asking.

Click to expand...

We aren't talking about length of description, though. The description number 1 and 2 that we discussed earlier showed that. The one you disliked was 3 words longer, so it's clearly not the length. It's the quality.