Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour? - Page 145
Page 145 of 148 FirstFirst ... 4595135136137138139140141142143144145146147148 LastLast
Results 1,441 to 1,450 of 1474
  1. #1441
    Member
    Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)

    Ovinomancer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    4,542
    Quote Originally Posted by BronzeDragon View Post
    Ah, the strong aroma of "Pretentious Storygamer"....

    You may wanna ease up on the cologne just a tad.
    Amusing. It's mostly those you'd kneejerk into "storygamers" that are on the no side and the process-sim follks on the yes side. I'm on the "you can call it literary, if you want, but it's at best mediocre literature." I don't call my games, story or otherwise, literary at all.

    Maybe take the hint that you've already removed all doubt twice now and stop continuing to do so?

  2. #1442
    Member
    Spellbinder (Lvl 16)



    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    San Mateo, California, USA
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    If there's an honest question in there, could you fish it out for me?
    You need the step by step? Can do!

    You asserted the following, in reference to Imaro's assertion about communication of content:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    Sure. Literally no one in this thread has said otherwise.
    Imaro then quoted Hriston asserting that only content matters, without regard to what words communicate that content.

    So if you still stand by your "no one in this thread has said otherwise" assertion, does your assertion now stipulate that when you said "no one", you meant Hriston?

    A simple "yes" or "no" response should suffice. Thanks in advance for your clarity and brevity!
    XP Imaro gave XP for this post

  3. #1443
    Member
    Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)

    Ovinomancer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    4,542
    Quote Originally Posted by Riley37 View Post
    You need the step by step? Can do!

    You asserted the following, in reference to Imaro's assertion about communication of content:



    Imaro then quoted Hriston asserting that only content matters, without regard to what words communicate that content.

    So if you still stand by your "no one in this thread has said otherwise" assertion, does your assertion now stipulate that when you said "no one", you meant Hriston?

    A simple "yes" or "no" response should suffice. Thanks in advance for your clarity and brevity!
    Sorry, did you miss where @Hriston said he was taken out of context and wasn't saying what @LMaro was claiming?

    It's been a busy thread, and people have trued to address things in multiple shifting frameworks as conversation has progressed. If you are trying to claim that people have actually advanced that being a jerk doesn't matter, then I don't see how a conversation can continue.
    XP Hriston gave XP for this post

  4. #1444
    Member
    Spellbinder (Lvl 16)



    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    San Mateo, California, USA
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    Sorry
    Apologies mean more and go further, when you also stop practicing the behavior for which you apologize.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    did you miss where @Hriston said he was taken out of context and wasn't saying what @LMaro was claiming?
    I did not miss that. Hriston said what he said, in the words he used. You can stand by your assertion that no one has said any such thing; you can walk it back; or you can deflect, dodge, distract and dissemble.

    I only rarely see a "no one is saying that" claim which holds up to rigorous factual examination. More often than not, someone somewhere IS saying that (for whatever value of "that").

    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    If you are trying to claim that people have actually advanced that being a jerk doesn't matter
    I haven't said anything on that topic. AFAIK you're the only one using that particular word in this thread. I'd rather not become the second.

  5. #1445
    Member
    Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)

    Ovinomancer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    4,542
    Quote Originally Posted by Riley37 View Post
    Apologies mean more and go further, when you also stop practicing the behavior for which you apologize.
    This is as far I as bothered to give you.

  6. #1446
    Member
    The Great Druid (Lvl 17)



    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    2,209
    Quote Originally Posted by Riley37 View Post
    Imaro then quoted Hriston asserting that only content matters, without regard to what words communicate that content.
    How do you get from me saying content matters to me saying *only* content matters? Obviously, all sorts of various things matter to different people when they play RPGs. Central to the experience of playing an RPG, however, is imagining the gameís fictional content. Whether a group considers their imaginings to be a literary endeavor, on the other hand, is a particular concern of the group in question. To other groups, it may not matter at all.

  7. #1447
    Member
    Spellbinder (Lvl 16)



    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    San Mateo, California, USA
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by Hriston View Post
    Obviously, all sorts of various things matter to different people when they play RPGs. Central to the experience of playing an RPG, however, is imagining the gameís fictional content. Whether a group considers their imaginings to be a literary endeavor, on the other hand, is a particular concern of the group in question. To other groups, it may not matter at all.
    I agree with what you're saying here!

    Your position and perspective as a whole, are more nuanced, more flexible, less absolutist, than this one thing you happened to say, somewhere back along the way: "In other words, itís the actual content that matters, not the particular words that are used and the way they are said."

    Even so, when Ovinomancer denied that anyone had said any such thing - well, as a matter of fact, you HAD said that thing. That sentence, as written, says that content matters, and wording doesn't matter. I'm not asking you to stand by or renounce that sentence as the sum of your thoughts on form and content; I was challenging Ovinomancer's assertion that no one had said anything along those lines.

  8. #1448
    Member
    A "Drizzit" Type-Thing (Lvl 28)



    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    The Stately Pleasure Dome of Xanadu.
    Posts
    7,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Manbearcat View Post
    Citing the above, I want to make sure I've captured your position before I attempt to move the conversation forward. To do so, I'm going to also cite the below from me:

    "the ability to communicate with economy but provocatively almost certainly has an amplification effect...one way or the other...but not a causal effect...hence why itís lower on the hierarchy)."

    Is your position that I (and others) have a blind spot for the gravity of the amplification effect I cite above (or further still, that it is indeed a causal effect) because of natural ability/decades of honing the crafts of exposition and oratory?

    Some kind of cognitive bias due to being well-practiced; call it "Aptitude Bias?"

    So, let me first answer that with a video-


    Did you watch? Good!

    "I can't frame that. There's loads and loads of things you just did that might as well be magic!"

    You see where I'm going with this, yes? So when you ascribe positions on the hierarchy, it's necessarily from the position you have now; as you would put it, your aptitude bias.

    It is somewhat difficult to fully grok the ways in which you have internalized the techniques you use, and how they impact your game... things that you now think of as merely incidental to framing, but which are both necessary and a predicate.

    Since we both watch sports, I will use an analogy- a lot of people enjoy criticizing sports commentators (pick your sport, say, football). But have you ever tried to do it yourself? IT IS INSANELY HARD. Or, just watch an amateur calling a high school game on local access. With reps, and time, people eventually get good at it. They learn when to speak, when not to speak, when to let the images create the drama, and when to fill in space (blowouts, say). After a while it becomes second nature. For many, it is automatic.

    And yet, it is there.
    XP Sadras gave XP for this post

  9. #1449
    Member
    Titan (Lvl 27)



    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    20,738
    Quote Originally Posted by Riley37 View Post
    I did not miss that. Hriston said what he said, in the words he used. You can stand by your assertion that no one has said any such thing; you can walk it back; or you can deflect, dodge, distract and dissemble.
    Seriously?

    Let's put to one side the fact that, contra @Imaro, Hriston's post was in reply to Hussar, not to him. Here is the exchange between Hussar and Hriston:

    Quote Originally Posted by Hussar View Post
    If the literary is unimportant, then why do DMGíd include dungeon dressing sections, most of which has little to no mechanical impact?
    Quote Originally Posted by Hriston View Post
    Because color (dungeon dressing) is content that provides atmosphere when imagined by the participants at the table. The quality of form with which itís expressed isnít whatís important but rather whether the odors, noises, furnishings, and items found in an area suggest a torture chamber, a harem, or a wizardís laboratory. In other words, itís the actual content that matters, not the particular words that are used and the way they are said.
    Hriston is refuting an express claim that "dungeon dressing" is a literary matter simply because it's non-mechanical, and also an apparent implication that the role and significance of dungeon dressing is a matter of evocative words used rather than content conveyed.

    Is anyone seriously suggesting, on the basis of this post, that Hriston thinks that word choice never matters to human conversation? or that rudeness ("being a jerk") can't affect human communication?

    It's ludicrous that I even have to make a post addressing this.

    And while we're doing review the past for misinterpretations, here are a series of posts from Imaro and me:

    Quote Originally Posted by Imaro View Post
    Really?? Because I literally brought up this idea that how content was presented could in fact determine whether a group would be interested in the content earlier in the thread (and one of the reasons I thought of it as core to the game) and these were the replies... Emphasis mine.
    Quote Originally Posted by pemerton View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Imaro View Post
    If the group isn't interested in engaging with the situations presented because your presentation/performance doesn't make it interesting to them... well there's no game.
    My take on this is the same as @Hriston's - it sounds to me like the situation is not interesting enough! As I've already posted in this thread, my advice to that GM would be to work on situation, not to work on voice modulation.
    Imaro appears to imply that me doubting whether presentation/performance is central to making a RPG situation interesting is the same as me denying that how content is presented could ever in fact determine whether a group would be interested in the content. Such that the following, from Imaro, is some sort of "gotcha":

    Quote Originally Posted by Imaro View Post
    Are you agreeing that how content is presented can determine whether people wish to engage with it?

    Do you make the same implication? Do you think it's a reasonable reading of my post?

    Just in case it needs to be spelled out (and I think I already posted a version of this a long way upthread, but maybe you and Imaro missed it): If the GM spits on the players, or smells, or speaks a language that is foreign to the players, or yells at them, or calls them ****holes, or any other of the innumerable ways that people can make for unpleasant company and can be unpleasant interlocutors, then I'm sure that might effect the willingness of the players to play the game. If the GM whispers, stammers excessively, mumbles, swallows his/her sentence endings, repeatedly uses the wrong word, etc, etc, then the same might be true.

    Much the same things applies to dinner parties, boardgame nights, attending tutorials, and really any occasion where people get together to interact.

    Is anyone asserting, on this basis, that all human interaction and communication is a literary endeavour? Is anyone asserting, on this basis, that speaking loud enough to be heard or choosing the right word to accurately describe something is an aspect of literary quality? Or in other words, is anyone asserting that the concept of literary as an adjective applied to endeavour and/or quality is empty, and adds nothing to the general notion of human interaction and communication?

    Does anyone who read the OP, which includes the following - RPGing requires narration: GMs describe situations, and players declare actions for their PCs that respond to those situations - think that I'm unaware that RPGing involves communication and interaction?

    I'm frankly at a loss as to what you want me, or @Hriston, or @Ovinomancer, to take away from your posts on this matter.
    XP darkbard, Hriston, Aldarc gave XP for this post

  10. #1450
    Member
    Titan (Lvl 27)



    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    20,738
    Quote Originally Posted by Riley37 View Post
    when Ovinomancer denied that anyone had said any such thing - well, as a matter of fact, you HAD said that thing. That sentence, as written, says that content matters, and wording doesn't matter. I'm not asking you to stand by or renounce that sentence as the sum of your thoughts on form and content; I was challenging Ovinomancer's assertion that no one had said anything along those lines.
    If someone says "All the cheese is gone" before the dinner party, and then the next day you and a friend are debating whether or not anyone has ever thought that there's no cheese left in the world, the person who said "All the cheese is gone" doesn't count as an example of such. It's not that they said as much but didn't mean it. It's that anyone who thinks that's what they said doesn't understand the relevant semantic features of natural language.

    @Hriston literally did not assert that the particular words used by a speaker never matter to the effectiveness of communication. Which is the assertion that you and @Imaro appear to be imputing to him. (And if that's not what you're imputing, then why is he turning up at the end of your "gotcha" stick?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Riley37 View Post
    when Ovinomancer denied that anyone had said any such thing - well, as a matter of fact, you HAD said that thing.
    Again, this is just false.

    Hriston wrote some words which, if misinterpreted, are capable of bearing the meaning that you and Imaro attribute to them. But that doesn't mean that Hriston said the thing that you are misinterpreting him as having said. That's what makes your interpretation a misinterpretation.

    @Ovinomancer even pointed this out, after @Hriston pointed it out, and yet you persist in attributing your misinterpretation. Why? What's the point? What do you think it's adding to the thread?
    Last edited by pemerton; Friday, 14th June, 2019 at 05:30 AM.
    XP darkbard, Hriston, Aldarc gave XP for this post

Similar Threads

  1. (Traveller) Great Rift Adventure 2: Deepnight Endeavour
    By Mongoose_Matt in forum Publishers, Promotions, Press Releases, DMs Guild, & Kickstarter Announcements
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Friday, 19th January, 2018, 11:18 AM
  2. Endeavour Class XI Cruiser
    By Morrus in forum EN Publishing, WOIN, ZEITGEIST, WotBS, & Worlds of 2000AD
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Tuesday, 20th October, 2015, 06:29 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •