Is RPGing a literary endeavour?

Manbearcat · May 27, 2019

One last post.

We're all familiar with the axiom:

"Its not what you say, its how you say it."

We are social animals. We are evolved to respond to inflection, tone, countenance.

But I don't agree with the first part in the slightest, in any arena, but especially in the conversation of TTRPGs.

Obviously its "what you say" in TTRPGs.

But, there is also an aspect of "how you say it."

Then, there is the significantly important aspect of GMing; "how deftly you integrate it (within the particular game's paradigm)."

I think these three components are what is in play in this conversation. For my mileage, each are important, but there is a hierarchy of import. Personally, I'm putting the hierarchy as follows:

1) How deftly you integrate it.

2) What you say.

3) How you say it.

Maxperson · May 27, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
But that establishes two potential meanings: 1) written works and 2) written works of superior or artistic merit. And in this conversation we see people equivocating between those two different meanings. I think at this point, we just have to leave this be. There isn't any further convincing of you I am sure. But this is definitely a second meaning imbedded in the definition. There is just no way around that.

Do you at least acknowledge that the second "meaning" does not exclude the first?

Maxperson · May 27, 2019

Aldarc said:
Sure, but you are not demonstrating that TTRPGs are literature, only that its associated literature is literature, which I don't think has been in doubt.

Nice gaslighting you're doing there, Max. But I'll call your bluff:
It turns out that you did present this strawman argument in a response to my post before and so it seems that you are full of crap, Max. So I would say that my accusation was verified by the literature you provided in this thread.

You REALLY need to learn the difference between a response to an argument, and attributing an argument to someone else.

Umbran · May 28, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
There isn't any further convincing of you I am sure.

Let's be even-handed about it - after this much argument, nobody is apt to convince anyone about things, are they? I mean, really, wouldn't that have happened already? Isn't everyone pretty much dug in and un-moving now?

Folks went something like 70 pages before you started addressing the definition in earnest. 70 pages.

Don't you all think that the emotional attachments to arguments - to lines drawn in the sand, were pretty much set by that point? I mean, folks had already decided if rpgs were, or were not, literary, some time ago. Nary a one is going to admit to wrongness and shift at this point, are they?

Consider whether bull-dogging on this one is constructive, folks.

pemerton · May 28, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
So let's focus on what the actual lines of dispute are, rather than fight endlessly over the definition of literary.

Yeah, I didn't expect this thread to be a debate about the meaning and scope of the term "literary".

I thought it might be a discussion about whether or not wordcraft is a principal or essential means of evoking emotional responses in a RPG. The point of my OP is to deny such a claim. On the other hand, I believe that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] affirms such a claim, as does [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]. I'm frankly not sure what [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] thinks about it.

Hussar said:
Everyone agrees with you @pemerton.

This isn't true at all. Unless you've changed your mind, upthread you asserted that the use of wordcraft and associated performance is a key means of promoting emotional responses in RPGing. Which is what I am disagreeing with.

************************

On the issue of "playstyle arguments/agendas", which has been flagged by [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION]: I think (and hope) it's obvious that my OP is putting forward a view about where the aesthetic merit and aeshetic power of RPGIng lies, and therefore a view about what the point of RPGing ultimately is.

I recognise that others will disagree. That's not uncommon in critical discussions.

I'm not 100% sure that I agree with Eagleton that these "deep structures" of aesthetic evaluation correlate to, or express, social power relations and any resultant ideologies. That's a further, and harder, question. But as I posted upthread in reply to [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION], I do think that these aesthetic preferences can be connected to broader trends in RPG design and RPG play.

Some of [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s posts (about "plot wagons", and criticising player passivity) seem to me to imply a conception of RPGing where the GM brings the story and the players bring the expressive energy. Now maybe that's wrong, and Hussar is welcome to correct me if it is. But that conception of RPGing that I'm seeing there, even if not Hussar's, is I think quite a widespread one. I would associate it classicaly with White Wolf, Ravenloft and Dragonlance, and also with more contemporary "story-oriented" D&D.

And it's what I'm pushing against in my OP.

Lanefan · May 28, 2019

Aldarc said:
But hopefully we can recognize that RPGs exist as far more than their rulebooks, much as cooking is more than the recipes and sports are more than their rulebooks.

Of course. The reference I was replying to, however, dealt only with the rulebooks.

Lanefan · May 28, 2019

hawkeyefan said:
I don’t know about that last bit. In actual literature, I’d say yes, the quality of prose can make what would otherwise be a bland situation to actually be compelling. When it comes to RPGs though....I don’t think the same is true. A boring encounter is gonna be boring no matter how the GM may try and spruce it up with narration.

To each their own, I suppose.

The eyepatch was indeed left out. I provided one example where the GM was relying on evocative narration and one where he provided content relevant to the player. Which touches upon the OP.

So it's a BS example then. Got it.

Had the eyepatch been in the first example then yes, it would provide a fine point of comparison between styles; and we could have gone on to dissect them and explain why we liked one or the other or a bit of both. That the eyepatch isn't there only serves to unfairly skew that comparison in a particular direction - I can only assume from what you say here that this was intentional.

Not cool.

Lanefan · May 28, 2019

Manbearcat said:
In terms of the fiction, let us say that its an exorcism in the throne room to determine whether the powerful demon possessing the princess (who is the sole heir...the king was cursed with infertility after her birth) claims her body forever (thus cueing a significantly up-leveled battle where not only must she/it be defeated, but the King and Queen, Minions, must be protected) or the demon is cast out, back to the Abyss.

So the situation is dire (both mechanically and fiction-wise), on the precipice of disaster or fortune (on the roller coaster plunge of the Falling Action).

Is there a collection of, say, 15 words that can impel the gravity (say, better depict the steep angle of descent down the Falling Action roller coaster) better than any other collection of 15 words, where both collections of words conveys the situation appropriately (appropriately here meaning, inform players sufficiently that they can make intuitive action declarations for their PCs).

Probably, but my immediate question is why the word limit? Some GMs might convey it wonderfully in 10 words (or even simply a raised eyebrow!) while others might do it equally wonderfully using 50 words or more.

It's table- and person-dependent, I think.

Lan-"Assuming the scene and situation had already been described to death, I'd probably use just six words here: make this roll or you're effed"-efan

Maxperson · May 28, 2019

pemerton said:
Yeah, I didn't expect this thread to be a debate about the meaning and scope of the term "literary".

I thought it might be a discussion about whether or not wordcraft is a principal or essential means of evoking emotional responses in a RPG. The point of my OP is to deny such a claim.

I've seen you engage in it. You once gave an example of the angel feather being a potential object for the PC to rescue his brother from the balrog. You didn't describe it a widget. You didn't describe it as object #1. You didn't describe it as a thing. You made it an angel feather, because an angel feather will evoke an emotional response that object #1 or widget won't. You engaged in wordcraft to make the situation more interesting and compelling. It may not have been wordcraft to the level of Shakespeare, but it was still wordcraft.

Hussar · May 28, 2019

Lanefan said:
Probably, but my immediate question is why the word limit? Some GMs might convey it wonderfully in 10 words (or even simply a raised eyebrow!) while others might do it equally wonderfully using 50 words or more.

It's table- and person-dependent, I think.

Lan-"Assuming the scene and situation had already been described to death, I'd probably use just six words here: make this roll or you're effed"-efan

I think the point is, can we convey the same information in the same number of words, where one description will evoke an emotional response better than another.

I'd say, yup, absolutely. I posed a similar description pages back of a Vengaurak where the difference between the two descriptions was 5 words, yet, one was deemed "too literary" and the otehr was accpetable.