Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

GrahamWills said:

It seems an odd position to me that, in an endeavor where the main activity is describing things (what your character is doing, what the world is like, what is going on) someone can take the position that the quality of presentation of that description is pretty much irrelevant. . . . It's a reasonable position to say that the content is MORE important than the delivery, sure. But saying that it is unimportant doesn't seem terribly reasonable.

Click to expand...

pemerton said:

I don't see RPGing as primarily performance (in the artistic sense). Not for the GM - of course a melifluous GM can provide entertainment, but I don't see that as core. And likewise on the player side - thespianism is (in my view) secondary, whereas engaging the fiction from the position/perspective of the character is absolutely central.

Click to expand...

pemerton said:

The player is invited to adopt the perspective of the PC, and from that perspective to make a choice. This is a completely different form of engagement. . . . My view is that when we think about things from the point of view of RPGing, this common invitation to engagement is much more important than the issue of which has more literary merit.

Click to expand...

pemerton said:

A GM who can't control his/her words at all is going to have trouble wrapping up a scene, or cutting to the next situation, in a smooth way; but I think the threshold of skill to be able to do this falls well short of being able to write an evocative opening or closing line.

I'll finish this post by saying that, in denying that RPGing is a *literary* endeavour I'm not denying that it has an important aesthetic component. But I think that the aesthetic component is much more connected to a sense of motion and drama in human affairs, than to a sense of beauty in composition or performance.

Click to expand...

pemerton said:

If a new(-ish) GM asked me what is the one thing to do to make his/her game better, I would recommend working on managing framing and consequences to maintain player engagement, rather than (say) working on the portrayal/characterisation of NPCs.

Click to expand...

GrahamWills said:

It seems an odd position to me that, in an endeavor where the main activity is describing things (what your character is doing, what the world is like, what is going on) someone can take the position that the quality of presentation of that description is pretty much irrelevant.

I cannot think of any other communication-based activity where anyone might say such a thing. Not movies, not art, not comics, not children playing on a playground, not business presentations, not writing, not radio, nothing.

Click to expand...

uzirath said:

As someone who spends a fair amount of time teaching people how to play RPGs (adults and K-12 kids), I'm always looking for ways to get to the heart of the art form. Right now, I still can't quite wrap my head around what "working on managing framing and consequences" looks like at a beginner's table.

Click to expand...

uzirath said:

I've been idly following this thread and, although I don't wholly agree with the premise that RPGs are not literary, it doesn't seem to me that @pemerton is denying that delivery has an important role to play. He's simply demoting it from first place. Here are a few quotes...

Click to expand...

GrahamWills said:

Here is the original, framing statement:

RPGing requires narration: GMs describe situations, and players declare actions for their PCs that respond to those situations. But I don't think the literary quality of that narration is important.

If we had started with a quote that said "I think the content of an RPG game is less important than the presentation of it" this thread would have lasted a day at most. Everyone agrees, we move on. But that is not the premise; the thread clearly states that the literary quality is not important.

Your collection of quotes is helpful though -- thanks! It does suggest that we have moved the goal posts enough so that we can close in agreement. The OP now believe that is is important, just not as important as content. That seems fair enough to me, so I guess we are good!

Click to expand...

pemerton said:

I think it's about imagining the opening as invitation, rather than imagining the resolution. I think this is something that can be meaningfully talked about with a new GM.

Click to expand...

One way to invite the players to engage the situation is to frame a situation that reveals/presents a trajectory towards something the player wishes was otherwise. This, in turn, makes us ask how can we know what the players/PCs want, which helps a new GM think about how to engage with the players in PC building.

Click to expand...

pemerton said:

This the very thing that I disagree with. Of course quality of writing and also quality of delivery is crucial to a recitation. But I'm arguing that at the heart of RPGing is an activity which is basically the antithesis of a GM reading the players some pre-written prose.

I'm also arguing that the more one tries and makes the strengths of RPGing the same as the strengths of a recitation, the harder it will be to achieve a satisfying experience. This is because writing good prose, and reading it well, is a very demanding activity; and the writing, at least, is generally a solitary activity which means that this approach to RPGing locates much of the experience not in the play at all, but rather in the preparation.

Conversely, I think most people - especially those who are interested in RPGing - have robust imaginations and a good creative urge. Which means that emphasising the contrast between RPGIng and recitation/thespianism makes it relatively easy to produce good experiences.

Click to expand...

pemerton said:

I don't know anything about "classic text adventures".

Click to expand...