Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Candians - from Candyland, maybe?I don't think there are any Americans among me and my colleagues. A couple of Candians.
Candians - from Candyland, maybe?I don't think there are any Americans among me and my colleagues. A couple of Candians.
[MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] above talks about a mechanic using technical language. Thing is, that's not really a conversation either. That's a mechanic imparting information to the customer, but, it's probably mostly one direction and if the mechanic dives too far into technical jargon, there's no conversation at all as the listener has no idea what's being talked about.
We are telling you we focus on both... without situation or scenario what am I using evocative language for? Without evocative language my players wont be engaged with the situation or scenario.
If pressed I jot down situation or scenario notes with what I call keywords and improvise description with said keywords.
Let me ask a question to [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], [MENTION=9200]Hawkeye[/MENTION], [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] and [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]. Would you use the same words/language/etc. to describe a remote village in the mountains for say a Ravenloft campaign vs a Four color superhero game like Icons? let's assume good faith in that the Icons village isn't supposed to be haunted or anything tht would make it more Ravenloft-esque....
EDIT: Meant [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] ...
If the village in the Marvel game is a small, remote, sinister mountain village in (say) Latveria, then probably yes.Would you use the same words/language/etc. to describe a remote village in the mountains for say a Ravenloft campaign vs a Four color superhero game like Icons? let's assume good faith in that the Icons village isn't supposed to be haunted or anything tht would make it more Ravenloft-esque
Situationally dependent.That’s fine. I’d even agree in some instances.
But what do you focus on with your game prep? Do you focus on creating situations or scenarios with which to engage your players? Or do you focus on how the scenarios are presented?
Let’s say you have minimal prep time for a session....you can only get so much done. What kind of prep would you typically do?
The scenario was a conversation between two mechanics, though.
The thing is, Hussar, you're assuming a lot about the nature of the conversation and inserting things into my text that was not necessarily there, aren't you? In literature, we refer to that as "eisegesis," and that is fairly typically frowned upon. Nowhere did I establish, for example, that the automechanic is talking to a customer. The automechanic may be talking to a friend, a family member, or even their barber, but I did not establish that the automechanic was providing a diagnosis or explanation to a customer. I only established that the automechanic's conversational vocabulary will be unique due to their own contextual experiences.[MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] above talks about a mechanic using technical language. Thing is, that's not really a conversation either. That's a mechanic imparting information to the customer, but, it's probably mostly one direction and if the mechanic dives too far into technical jargon, there's no conversation at all as the listener has no idea what's being talked about.
So how exactly have you actually shown that the word "wield," for example, would not appear in regular conversation or that it's being purposefully chosen to evoke reactions?Is it "literary"? Maybe not. But, it's certainly not conversation either. [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] keeps pressing me to prove that the language is literary. I'm not because the definition of "literary" is so nebulous. I don't have to. I only have to show that it isn't conversational to show that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is wrong. And I CAN show that because the language that's being chosen, often deliberately chosen, is being chosen to evoke specific reactions and is language that would almost never appear in a conversation.
I appreciate the defense, Maxperson. As I explain above though, I didn't clarify in my original statement who the mechanic was speaking to. But later I do say that they will likely alter their language based upon who they are talking to, which may include another mechanic, but I like to believe that mechanics will likely speak to people in their lives other than other mechanics and customers.The scenario was a conversation between two mechanics, though.
The thread doesn't ask does, or can, RPGing have a literary aspect? It asks whether it is a literary endeavour. That is: does RPGing aim at possessing the virtues and exhibitng the qualities of literature? (Note that - because in this thread it seems to need to be repeated - something can have an aim that it does not maximally achieve. For instance, when high school students write stories they often aim at possessing the virtues and exhibiting the qualities of literature, but this doesn't mean that the stories they've written are good literature or "high art".)pemerton's thread title is misleading; it isn't what he actually cares about. If, in a TRPG session, GMs give only the most conversational (but adequate and functional) descriptions and prompts, and players respond with action declarations *which include literary use of language*, then that TRPG session has a literary aspect
In my own experience, when this occurs it's very often due to weak situation, weak framing, little or no call to action.Apparently your typical RPG experience differs from mine. I've more often seen pacing and focus as the weak links. "Two hours of fun, packed into a four-hour session" is all too often the weak link, whether that's due to the GM performing poorly, players performing poorly (such as not giving the game their primary attention), or a combination of GM failure and player failure.
That’s understandable. I’m trying not to assume that there are only two views or that anyone is speaking for anyone else because I think that’s led to a lot of confusion throughout.
That’s a good question. Honestly, I think it depends on the situation and what you’re trying to do. I think that some variation of word choice is certain, as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and I have recently discussed.
I think with any of those examples, I’d likely try to establish the tone early on. I think the genre or content will do a lot of the heavy lifting in that regard, but I’d likely try to describe things in a way that would reinforce the desired tone. But I think that would be very front-loaded for me. Probably at each level of the game....campaign level, and then again at the session or scene level.
But I think that my goal as a GM is to convey the ideas as quickly and clearly as possible. I’m not going to spend 25 words to describe the monster approaching the party when “zombie” will do. So I want to get to that place where it all happens quickly and we proceed. I will be descriptive as needed, but I don’t really want to linger on narration once we’re past the scene-setting point.