I asked, on page 1 and again on page 119: if TRPG is literary, then what? if TRPG isn't literary, then what?
I thought that this was fairly apparent early on when he says that they are a conversational endeavor entailing a back-and-forth between the GM and player contributing to the fiction through their relevant roles.
If this conversational endeavor is also a literary endeavor, *how does that overlap of endeavor differ from non-overlap?*
You still haven't answered my question. (Smugness does not, itself, constitute an answer.)
The meat of his assertion was that it's more important for the functioning of RPGs that information be communicated to players in a manner that informs and engages player agency in the fiction than for GMs to focus on the prosaic quality of the GM narration.
You say that as if the prosaic quality of the GM narration had nothing to do with whether that narration conveys information in a manner which informs and engages player agency in the fiction. GM narration which uses an *appropriate* measure of literary technique will clearly establish the scene in the mind's eye of the players, more reliably than GM narration which does not.
Players sometimes ask GMs for descriptions using literary tropes. For example, I was running a one-shot adventure in a science fiction setting, in which the PCs are the crew of a freighter. A player asked me whether the PCs were wearing bulky space suits with big goldfish-bowl helmets, or jumpsuits with zippers, as a general indication of the imagery and the technology level of the setting. If the player had felt better served by *not* applying literary tropes, then the player would not have asked in those terms.
We could also rephrase pemerton's assertion in another way. What hurts the functioning of the game more? The loss of performative literary prosaic narration? Or players not having a sense of how to meaningfully react or contribute to the fiction in a scene as agents?
Okay, then here's my counter-assertion: how is an assertion still an assertion when you rephrase it as a question, and how is it honest when it frames two factors as a mutually exclusive fork, when in actual practice, one can be a consequence of the other?
GM Alex tells the players: "You enter the room. There's a wooden door on the north side, comfortably sized for Jinbat (the gnome PC) but Yurk (the human PC) would have to squeeze through. There's a jagged crack in the west wall, leading into a dark, damp tunnel. There's a staff leaning against the walls in the northwest corner, made of dark wood, with a spiral pattern of intricately carved symbols."
I enjoy the picture in my mind's eye resulting from the description. I have an immediate idea of what my PC will do: get ye staff and see if I recognize the symbols.
Then, as per your formulation of pemerton's dilemma, let's remove the prosaic quality of the narration, and see whether that removal increases or decreases player agency.
GM Bob tells the players "You enter the room. Exits are north and west. There's a staff."
As a player at Bob's table, I have *less* of an immediate sense of what my PC will do. I will ask Bob several follow-up questions. This may be as easy and fun as pulling teeth. Eventually I'll get some detail on what Bob meant by "exits". There's a chance that during that process, I'll forget that Bob ever mentioned a staff. The removal of literary quality from GM narration does not leave me *better* empowered, as a player, to make appropriate, well-informed action declarations. The result is not an improvement. At Alex's table, my PC now has a cool staff, and may at some point discover whatever awesome things can be done with it. At Bob's table, my PC doesn't even know the staff exists, and walked right past it on the way out of the room.
Some players play their PCs as well-prepared tactical experts AND play their PCs as people with personalities. Some players who do the former and not the latter. The problem isn't that they're doing the former. The problem is that they're not also doing the latter. Stormwind's Fallacy asserts that anyone who does the former is therefore, *necessarily*, not doing the latter. This is false, and creates unhelpful divisions among gamers.
Some GMs put effort into their narration and/or their role-playing of NPCs, AND put effort into presenting the players with a fictional environment rich with opportunities for PC actions (and interactions). Some GMs do the former and not the latter. The problem isn't that they're doing the former. The problem is that they're not also doing the latter. Pemerton's Fallacy - or is it just Aldarc's Fallacy? - asserts that any GM who does the former, is therefore necessarily NOT doing the latter.
I would personally prefer, Riley37, if you were to engage with my actual positions in this thread and not with your knee-jerk reactions.
