Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

Maxperson said:

You are excluding people who want pepperoni, though. As for equality, that's subjective. What makes what a vegetarian wants more important than what I want

Click to expand...

Please see what I wrote later:

Aldarc said:

That said, I am certain that if anyone who preferred pepperoni salami pizza genuinely believed that they were being unfairly excluded from a group ordering a cheese pizza when there are people with vegetarian, halal, or kosher diets present, then that person is probably a rude, self-centered dick who should be excluded though for reasons other than their pizza preferences.

Click to expand...

Hussar said:

Does anyone really think that comparing a horse to a sports car is going to evoke emotions or buy in to the situation?

Click to expand...

I know that it's a bit gauche to quote myself, but, I did want to expand on this thought and didn't have time at the time.

For me, sure, I get the idea if you compare a horse to a Lamborghini. OTOH, my wife, who knows nothing about cars, would just as likely be picturing Italian pasta if you said that. It's not like it would clarify anything for her.

And, that's kinda the point I was getting at. Wordcraft, if we want to use that word, is all about using the right word or phrase to evoke reaction from the audience. But, in order to ignore wordcraft, we need to have an audience that is already steeped in the literary context of the RPG. And, yes, I do say literary context since many RPG's are based very strongly on written works. Whether you want to look at something like D&D with it's Appendix N, or Vampire and its ties to all sorts of vampire stories, or Fate with its strong ties to pulps, or Savage Worlds, again tied to pulps, or Prince Valiant which is directly based off of a comic book series. For those of us genre nerds who have read these works, it's easy to shorthand lots of things. We already have the context built in because we've read the literature which drew our attention through wordcraft.

No one has ever accused Tolkien of using a conversational tone.
[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] mentioned my participation in the skills threads. But, I realized something out of those threads. What I do and what a lot of the method:goal folks do is virtually the same. I just skip a few steps simply because of familiarity with my group and the rules. It doesn't bother me if a player calls for a skill check because, well, we've all played together for a very long time and we pretty much know when skill checks are going to be called anyway. But, if we got a new player or two at the table, I imagine we'd, for a while at least, fall back into a more formal style.

Same goes here. I think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and others brush off the "word craft" aspect of running a game simply because they have groups where they are familiar enough with each other and the source material that you can skip over things because you don't need to set the context. It's already been set through hours and hours of play.

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s post reminded me of another thread many of us engaged in, I'm a little lazy now to go searching for a link but it was the thread about the blocked texts in published modules. It would be interesting to see which of us valued the blocked texts (even as a starting point) with those of us which strongly lean on wordcrafting being of significant importance in RPGing.

Sadras said:

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s post reminded me of another thread many of us engaged in, I'm a little lazy now to go searching for a link but it was the thread about the blocked texts in published modules. It would be interesting to see which of us valued the blocked texts (even as a starting point) with those of us which strongly lean on wordcrafting being of significant importance in RPGing.

Click to expand...

Heh, I'm pretty sure that that thread was a primary genesis for this one.

Sadras said:

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s post reminded me of another thread many of us engaged in, I'm a little lazy now to go searching for a link but it was the thread about the blocked texts in published modules. It would be interesting to see which of us valued the blocked texts (even as a starting point) with those of us which strongly lean on wordcrafting being of significant importance in RPGing.

Click to expand...

I don't find boxed text especially important. I don't mind if it is included in a module, but I don't like reading it aloud, and don't like having it read aloud to me. At the same time, not terribly interested in word crafting when I am GMing or playing.

Hussar said:

I know that it's a bit gauche to quote myself, but, I did want to expand on this thought and didn't have time at the time.

For me, sure, I get the idea if you compare a horse to a Lamborghini. OTOH, my wife, who knows nothing about cars, would just as likely be picturing Italian pasta if you said that. It's not like it would clarify anything for her.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is just like pemerton said in the OP:

What matters to me is that the players feel the significance of the situations the GM describes - that they feel the pull to action, and the threats of inaction. That is, that the situation engage and motivate the players as players, not as an audience to a performance.

Click to expand...

But the literary quality of a description that compares a horse to a Lamborghini would be wasted on someone who lacks the appropriate cognitive context to contextualize the utterance. The literary quality of the narration is unimportant in comparison with the GM's ability to describe a situation that engages the players' ability to motivate the players as players. I'm glad that you agree with pemerton.

And, that's kinda the point I was getting at. Wordcraft, if we want to use that word, is all about using the right word or phrase to evoke reaction from the audience. But, in order to ignore wordcraft,

Click to expand...

Which is not being argued. Instead, I will suggest that pemerton would argue that "the GM's wordcraft was made for the player and not the player for the GM's wordcraft." The wordcraft is kinda immaterial (i.e., unimportant) if it fails to engage player participation and the creation of new fiction through play. I think that is his underyling point: what function does this wordcraft serve for the primary principles of gameplay? In other words, the wordcraft should not exist for its own sake - a manner that makes the players "an audience to a performance" rather than players - but for the sake of contextualizing the ability of players to act as players.

we need to have an audience that is already steeped in the literary context of the RPG. And, yes, I do say literary context since many RPG's are based very strongly on written works. Whether you want to look at something like D&D with it's Appendix N, or Vampire and its ties to all sorts of vampire stories, or Fate with its strong ties to pulps, or Savage Worlds, again tied to pulps, or Prince Valiant which is directly based off of a comic book series. For those of us genre nerds who have read these works, it's easy to shorthand lots of things. We already have the context built in because we've read the literature which drew our attention through wordcraft.

Click to expand...

I again think that you are confusing a component with the whole. I don't think that it's necessarily the literary context that we need, but, rather, it's the cognitive context. Our sense for "vampire" is not purely literary by any means. It's cultural. It's oral folk stories. It's transmitted to us through play. It's imaginative. It's visual. It can even be audial. Our cognitive context with RPGs extends far beyond its literature but extends to a wide variety of cultural clues that can become mentally triggered through the play experience.

Same goes here. I think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and others brush off the "word craft" aspect of running a game simply because they have groups where they are familiar enough with each other and the source material that you can skip over things because you don't need to set the context. It's already been set through hours and hours of play.

Click to expand...

I don't think that it is necessarily about skipping over the source material but providing narration that serves the participitory functions of the GM and player in creating the fiction through play. Pemerton, for example, says that the player should not be treated as a passive audience member to the GM's narration.

Bedrockgames said:

I don't find boxed text especially important. I don't mind if it is included in a module, but I don't like reading it aloud, and don't like having it read aloud to me. At the same time, not terribly interested in word crafting when I am GMing or playing.

Click to expand...

LOL. Well that is exactly my point!
I enjoy the boxed texts, even if they just provide a base or inspiration, and I lean heavier on the side that values wordcrafting. I'm no great wordsmith and as such find myself marveling at DMs who are able to string beautifully crafted sentences together with ease and without prep.

I'm not saying everyone is like you and me, polar opposites on this agenda, but I do think there is a connection between the two topics. I very much agree with Hussar that that thread was a precursor to this thread.

Aldarc said:

Please see what I wrote later:

Click to expand...

I did. You are arbitrarily deciding that some peoples preferences(religion, diet, etc.) are more valuable than other peoples preferences, calling one side names if they don't cave in to your arbitrary decision.

Aldarc said:

I don't think that it is necessarily about skipping over the source material but providing narration that serves the participitory functions of the GM and player in creating the fiction through play. Pemerton, for example, says that the player should not be treated as a passive audience member to the GM's narration.

Click to expand...

What does this even mean? Anytime I'm relaying information (regardless of it's literary quality), unless you are constantly interrupting me, you are (at least until I am finished speaking) a passive audience member to whatever I am narrating.

Imaro said:

What does this even mean? Anytime I'm relaying information (regardless of it's literary quality), unless you are constantly interrupting me, you are (at least until I am finished speaking) a passive audience member to whatever I am narrating.

Click to expand...

I could be wrong but I believe Pemerton is talking about players actually having input into content. This would definitely make them not passive. Further even if the player input is just through their questions to the GM and their actions as characters, I think there is a huge difference between a game where players recognize the GM has a space allotted for narration, versus ones where the players can freely interject, challenge or declare actions at any point. Obviously that doesn't mean people are rude. Everyone usually gets a chance to say what they have to say. But the GM's narration isn't treated very differently from other elements of the conversation.