Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

Hussar said:

It's no different than the folks that insist that Edition X isn't really a Role Playing Game. It's self serving twaddle and borderline trolling. And, frankly, I'm being to suspect that it was done with a complete disregard to good faith.

Click to expand...

Except this seems a lot closer to your position to me. Because you are the ones saying GMs must or should be striving for high literary quality description (or at least descriptions of a certain quality), and others here are telling you this isn't how we role play. But you keep insisting it is a necessary part of role-playing. So it is the same kind of argument you see people make about edition X not being a roleplaying game.

hawkeyefan said:

Okay....let’s continue with our one eyed brother killer example. The player made a character whose goal is to find his brother’s killer, the one eyed man.

GM 1 gives that player this bit of narration:
“The Great Northern road has been little more than a muddy trail for the past two days. The rain’s been incessant, varying only between total downpour and deluge. Finally, as night begins to take hold, you see firelight in the distance. You head towards it and are relieved to find it’s an inn and tavern. There’s a sign swinging wildly above the door, it reads ‘The Whispering Eye Inn’.

“You make your way inside. A small bell rings when you open the door. The small common room is packed with travelers seeking shelter. They look up at you with uninterested expressions, before turning back to their drinks. You remove your sodden cloaks, hanging them on a row of pegs along the wall beside the door. Immediately, the warmth from the large fireplace across the room hits you. You’d nearly forgotten what warmth was.

“The tables are all full, so you make your way to the only available seats, a pair of stools by the bar. As you cross the room, a redheaded serving girl emerges from the kitchen with a tray full of bowls, and a delicious smell wafts your way. From behind the bar, a bald man of middling years and a red beard smiles at you and gestures toward the stools. ‘Come in and warm yourselves, friends. What you smelled is my old marm’s beef and apple stew. I’ll have Tansy fetch you each a bowl. It’ll warm your bones.’ He looks at each of you, his eyes taking note of your gear, but he does not react in any way. He nods as you sit and then asks ‘Wine or ale, friends?’

“Soon enough you’ve a drink in hand and a bowl of stew before you, and you think your clothes may actually be less wet than they were. The bell rings, and heads turn to see who’s entering. The tall man removes his wide brimmed hat, revealing long dark hair. He shakes the rain from his hat with a look of contempt. He then eyes the wall pegs reluctantly before finally hanging his hat and cloak on one of the hooks. He moves with an economy of motion that you recognize as that of a fighting man, and indeed, a finely crafted sword hangs at his hip. One hand comes to rest on the pommel as his gaze sweeps across the room. Again, his lip curls dismissively. Wiping rain from his face, he makes his way into the room. You feel like perhaps you know this man, but you can’t say why.“


Now, GM 2 gives that player this bit of narration:
“You’re all seated at the bar of the Whispering Eye Tavern. It’s raining heavily outside. The common room is a bit crowded with folks taking shelter from the rain. The front door swings open, and in walks a man. He’s wearing an eyepatch.”


Which of these do you think will engage the player more?

Click to expand...

Number 2. Not because of language difference, but because of the size of number 1. I encountered this in some old modules in 1e and 2e. The text blocks were so long that the players lost track of what had been said halfway through the reading.

Hriston said:

If we define describing things as a literary endeavor, then yes, RPGing is a literary endeavor because, as it says in the OP, it requires describing things. What I don’t get about what you said in your last post to which I responded is how you describe an orc without being conscious that you’re describing an orc.

Click to expand...

I can describe an orc in my sleep. However, if I want to come up with creative descriptions, I would have to stop and carefully choose my words. That's the difference.

Bedrockgames said:

narrative literary quality does not equal not dull. In fact, something having too much literary quality, in my experience, can add to its dullness. Either way, you are attributing positions to me I haven't taken, because you can't conceive of someone running a game differently than you do.

Click to expand...

You just repeated what I just said. I didn't attribute to you a position you didn't take.

It is about the level of narration.

Click to expand...

Right. Just like I said. You care about the literary quality insofar as you don't want dull literary descriptions. That doesn't mean you are trying for Shakespeare. You care, but you don't care for too much of it. Just like I said.

Maxperson said:

You just repeated what I just said. I didn't attribute to you a position you didn't take.



Right. Just like I said. You care about the literary quality insofar as you don't want dull literary descriptions. That doesn't mean you are trying for Shakespeare. You care, but you don't care for too much of it. Just like I said.

Click to expand...

No I didn’t agree with what you said. I stated that having literal quality does not mean it isn’t dull. Something can be terrible from a literary standard, but engaging and exciting. Something can be of high literary quality and be extremely dull. However my interest is the complication exchange not the quality of the description itself. Literary quality isn’t something I think if when GMing

Bedrockgames said:

No I didn’t agree with what you said. I stated that having literal quality does not mean it isn’t dull.

Click to expand...

I never said it did.

Something can be terrible from a literary standard, but engaging and exciting. Something can be of high literary quality and be extremely dull. However my interest is the complication exchange not the quality of the description itself. Literary quality isn’t something I think if when GMing

Click to expand...

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. 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.

Are you okay with all of your descriptions being dull?

Hussar said:

I guess, at the end of the day, I'm just not seeing the division. If the DM and players are narrating their hearts out/doing their best to perform their characters, then protagonism is going to happen automatically.

Click to expand...

I've not just heard rumours of, but have played through, counter-examples to this. Mostly in an AD&D 2nd ed context, but also CoC and Rolemaster.

Hussar said:

You can't perform your character without becoming the protagonist. It's just not possible.

Click to expand...

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.)

Hussar said:

Protagonism without performance is what we do in board games, not RPG's.

Click to expand...

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

Maxperson said:

Number 2. Not because of language difference, but because of the size of number 1. I encountered this in some old modules in 1e and 2e. The text blocks were so long that the players lost track of what had been said halfway through the reading.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

pemerton said:

I've not just heard rumours of, but have played through, counter-examples to this. Mostly in an AD&D 2nd ed context, but also CoC and Rolemaster.

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.)

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

Click to expand...

Would you say that the difference you’re bringing up is about what’s important to the specific character? That you want for the game to be about the characters and their desires rather than just feature them?

hawkeyefan said:

Would you say that the difference you’re bringing up is about what’s important to the specific character? That you want for the game to be about the characters and their desires rather than just feature them?

Click to expand...

Yes, in that context. I'll explain the qualification by way of an example from a specific system.

Each PC in Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic has two Milestones. Here are two example milestones - one is from Captain America in the core rulebook, the other is one that I made up in collaboration with the player for the berserker in my Cortex+ Fantasy Hack Vikings game:


There is no limit (other than inherent constraints, like you can only do something for the first time once) on how often you can achieve the 1 XP milestone. The 3 XP milestone will only accrue XP once per scene, even if repeated. When the 10 XP milestone is completed then that particular character arc is done, and a new milestone is needed. The WORDS, NOT DEEDS milestone was taken up by the berserker in my game after he'd completed his initial DEEDS, NOT WORDS milestone (because an impulsive action caused him to be stressed out, which was one of the options at the top of that original milestone).

The feature of these milestones that I want to point to at the moment is that a player can play them, earning XP somewhat independently of what the GM is serving up. Not completely, but somewhat. (This degree of independence can also vary a bit between milestones. I've chosen two examples that clearly illustrate the point.) I think this is a deliberate feature of the system, that reflects its starting point as a supers system - it tends to detach the character arc from the details of the practical ingame situation, just as Spidey's character arc will tend to progress whether it's The Vulture or Sandman who features as the villain in this month's issue.

But the system also has mechanical features that support these milestones. For instance, taking non-attack actions in action scenes, including aiding other heroes, isn't the sort of sub-optimal choice that it often would be in D&D - conflict can be won by attrition but doesn't have to be, and building up assets (which are generated by aiding others and/or taking non-attack actions) is one way to establish a dice pool that can allow a one-shot victory rather than require attrition.

So it's pretty hard for the GM to actively get in the way of the players exploring and playing out their milestones in the course of engaging with the GM's material.

Now to bring this back to my AD&D 2nd ed experiences: obviously there's no mechanical subystem comparable to the Milestone system. But, in play, we as players would develop our characters in interaction with one another and these arc-potentials would emerge somewhat organically. However, in AD&D it's incredibly easy, I would say almost to the point of inevitability, for the GM to get in the way. For a start, you almost always have to subordinate this stuff to more pragmatic considerations once the action starts. And the GM has such a high degree of control over aspects of the gameworld that player action declarations become very dependent on what the GM has put there.

So I think, in an AD&D context - and the same is true (I would say) for Rolemaster, 4e D&D, and I would expect 5e too - that in practical terms the GM not getting in the way turns into the GM brings up stuff that is important to this character. These systems just don't support leaving that to occur on the player side.

I hope that makes sense, though it really only scratches the surface of this particular topic. (Eg MHRP/Cortex+ at least in my experience isn't an ideal vehicle for intense play for the exact same reason - there's a "background-ish" aspect to the GM's material relative to the PC story arcs. I think intense play wants these to be more tightly connected (necessary but not sufficient condition). But not all protagonism has to be intense protagonism.)