Is RPGing a literary endeavour?

Hussar · May 29, 2019

hawkeyefan said:
No one is saying what THE REAL POINT of RPGing is. Someone has offered A VIEW about what the real point is.

Seriously.....it's his opinion. Feel free to discuss it, agree or disagree or make a new point, but everyone needs to relax with this cry of one true wayism anytime someone puts forth their opinion without a giant disclaimer that it's their own view.

As much disagreement as there seems to have been with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s point, I don't think I've seen much in the way of an actual counter-argument so much as challenging the way he's worded his argument.

Does anyone have some compelling argument about how the literary quality of narration can be more engaging to players than content? Does anyone have an example of an incredibly well written module or game book that they think displays this?

It'd be nice to see what people have in mind in that regard rather than the continuing discussion on the meaning of literary and so forth.

I’d argue that most classic dnd modules fall in this category. Most are straightforward dungeon crawls with little or no interesting content beyond kill and loot.

Yet, how they are presented have made them classics. Bree yark and various Gygaxisms. Otis artwork. All that sensawunda stuff that folks go on about.

Maxperson · May 29, 2019

Sadras said:
Max, you have a tendency to be rather liberal in your definitions and technically you are not wrong but by broadening the use of wordcraft to such a degree you make its value in this debate somewhat meaningless. You applied the same thought to literary endeavour and came up with your grocery list example.

In this very post I had to technically wordcraft, that does not mean I consider my post to be some sort of literary endeavour.

You can afford to be a little more conservative and fair in the terminology used. Don't go full progressive on us.

LOL My wife would break a rib laughing to hear me called liberal or progressive. Not that I'm very conservative, but I fall more often to that side of the center.

Anyway, back on topic. I broaden things the way I do, because as you note, they are technically correct, and I am trying to get people on one page so that we can discuss the topic easier. When we have people defining something 5 different ways, it's almost impossible to have a meaningful discussion. If I can get people to understand the broader definition, then we can start refining in a way that will be more productive. The problem is that people here are allergic to anything that might resemble changing an opinion, so we have people fighting tooth and nail to avoid admitting the moon orbits the earth, the sun is a star, and this thing off of the coast of California is the Pacific Ocean.

Hussar · May 29, 2019

hawkeyefan said:
Sure, one is a more polite to make the statement, but they pretty much say the same thing. I attribute the choice made to the desire to spark a conversation, which it did, but it also sparked another, which became the bigger one of the two.

/snip

So iow the wordcraft is more important than the content.

Maxperson · May 29, 2019

hawkeyefan said:
No one is saying what THE REAL POINT of RPGing is. Someone has offered A VIEW about what the real point is.

Seriously.....it's his opinion. Feel free to discuss it, agree or disagree or make a new point, but everyone needs to relax with this cry of one true wayism anytime someone puts forth their opinion without a giant disclaimer that it's their own view.

There is no "real point" to RPGing. If your view is that there is One True Way to play the game, you are wrong. It's that simple. It doesn't matter if that it's an opinion. It's still an opinion about the One True Way to play the game.

Does anyone have some compelling argument about how the literary quality of narration can be more engaging to players than content? Does anyone have an example of an incredibly well written module or game book that they think displays this?

Has anyone even argued that it's more important? I've seen people argue that it's present in all RPGs. I've seen people argue that it's equal to content. I've seen people argue that it's important, but less important than content. I don't recall anyone saying it's more important, though.

Hussar · May 29, 2019

pemerton said:
/snip.

What has surprised me, though, is that in that thread Hussar was against such descriptions and in favour of "I roll a climb check: 16", whereas in this thread he wants the players to bring the evocative descriptions. I'm not saying that Hussar is inconsistent, just that he's drawing his boundaries of desirability in a different place from what I had anticipated.

Meh. I’m far too laid back. But that being said, while I have no problems with I roll climb, 16, that’s simply engaging mechanics. There’s typically no need for much narration there. And my criticism was based on the fact that either dcs would change because of the narration, tasks could automatically succeed because of the narration, or the dm might obviate the need for the skill at all because of the narration.

IOW the issue lies with how gmail might bypass mechanics based on the narration.

OTOH, the main sticking point here is because I still have no idea what you or Aldarc mean by these terms you are using.

As far as I can see, literary does not include the following:

Theme
Genre
Description
Exposition
Presentation
Use of literary techniques like foreshadowing or whatnot
Bacon

So you’ll pardon me for totally agreeing with you that the literary has nothing to do with RPGing. Because all of the above are essential to running a good game and if literary includes none of that, then of course RPGing isn’t literary.

Manbearcat · May 29, 2019

pemerton said:
OK, so in my earlier reply to you I had located "pacing" as something happening at the scene/scene transition level, but here you are bringing it back to the word choice in the moment level.

If your two questions (at the end of the first quote, and in the second quote) are accepted as purely rhetorical, then I think you're putting a lot of pressure on the form/content distinction: because the best way to present the invitation to action is via this rather than that choice of words.

I think my feeling is that, while there may be some word choices that are clearly better than others in this respect, (i) there is no optimum, and (ii) crossing the bar to satisfactory is generally straightforward enough that it's not a significant challenge of composition. But I need to think more. And I'll try and see what happens the next time I GM a game!

Couple thoughts. One related to the above, a third unrelated to the above.

1) I agree with both "there is no optimum" and "crossing the bar to satisfactory is generally straightforward enough that its not a significant challenge of composition."

The only daylight remaining is "assuming satisfactory word choice deployed to coherently (with respect to theme, mechanics, pacing) frame situation and invite to action, is it plausible that one arrangement of words (or noises made from mouth, put another way) can move beyond the realm of satisfactory (in terms of provocation)...even if just subtly so?"

I'm going to move a bit sideways here and think about monsters, on the axes of both economy and provocation.

Remember the 4e Night Hag standing between (figuratively at first) Thurgon and the safety of his King in our game?

It has the awesome Dream Haunting (psychic) ability that attacks stunned or unconscious creatures (vs Will), removes the Hag from play and delivers continuous psychic damage until the target is dead or no longer stunned or unconscious.

Then, the Night Hag has Wave of Sleep (Recharge 5, 6) that dazes and renders unconscious on a failed save.

We don't need a giant page of text to tell us about "Night Hag Ecology" to let us know about its place in our games (ripped straight from nightmarish folklore). The way the mechanics work together, what it attacks, what it does...those collection of words (mechanics in this place) and their brevity let us put the puzzle pieces together. And when we do, its visceral (because they're constructed so beautifully).

Then look at Dungeon World's Monster entries. Economic, provocative prose that compels your (the GMs) decision-points in how to integrate the creature as a looming or immediate threat when a danger needs introduced or a player move go awry. Take the Gnoll Tracker (without Tags, Qualities, HP, etc) entry from Ravenous Hordes (that subtype alone doing a good bit of work):

Once they scent your blood, you can’t escape. Not without intervention from the gods, or the duke’s rangers at least. The desert scrub is a dangerous place to go exploring on your own and if you fall and break your leg or eat the wrong cactus, well, you’ll be lucky if you die of thirst before the gnolls find you. They prefer their prey alive, see—cracking bones and the screams of the dying lend a sort of succulence to a meal. Sickening creatures, no? They’ll hunt you, slow and steady, as you die. If you hear laughter in the desert wind, well, best pray Death comes to take you before they do. Instinct: To prey on weakness

Doggedly track prey
Strike at a moment of weakness

2) What do you think about the hierarchy I listed above?

My (1) in the hierarchy would be the deft deployment of the Night Hag or Gnoll Trackers as newly framed antagonism, a looming threat, or an immediate reprisal.

Manbearcat · May 29, 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

While I heavily lean toward pithy, provocative framing, the number chosen in the post was arbitrary.

hawkeyefan · May 29, 2019

Hussar said:
So iow the wordcraft is more important than the content.

Very true, but this ain’t a RPG.

Maxperson · May 29, 2019

pemerton said:
With respect, this is silly. Describing things isn't *wordcraft* in the relevant sense.

But choosing this word over that is.

Four year old children have the vocabulary to describe the things that matter to them, and use it. But they're not engaged in literary activity. They're just speaking.

They have a much more limited vocabulary, but if they are picking words to use over other words, and they do, they are engaging in wordcraft. It's rudimentary at that age, but they put a lot of concentration on finding the right word, and often due to their limited vocabulary, they need help from adults.

If you think that there is no difference between describing things per se, and describing things in ways that evince quality of form and aesthetic merit in and of themselves, then run that argument. I think it's a hard argument to run, because it runs rougshod over some common-sense understandings and practices around composition (of fictional writing, of poetry, even of some non-fiction), but not impossible. But you have to actually run it!

Quality of form is a sliding scale. You don't have to achieve mastery in order for it to be present. So yes, there is a big difference between normal levels of wordcraft and mastery at wordcraft. Wordcraft is happening whenever you are choosing which words you want to use in order to get your point across, though.

Maxperson · May 29, 2019

Riley37 said:
Words I learned today: "diegetic". That's quite a useful word for discussion of the IC/OOC distinction. There's a scene in "High Anxiety" in which ominous music plays, and the main characters (all in a car, on a coastal highway) tense up and look around. A bus comes the other way; the bus passengers are all musicians, an orchestra, playing the ominous music.

Hmm. I would have used diuretic. [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] clearly has better wordcraft than I do.