Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
I don't think that Maxperson is 100% correct that RPGs are literature or literary on the basis that RPGs utilize literature, using his broader definition of "pertaining to a written text." You may call it a dodge, but my point with raising the analogy of cooking and sports is to illustrate that both activities are defined by more than their associated literature (i.e., recipes and rulebooks, respectively) and we do not consider either of these activities to be "literature" (with Max's sense) simply because they have associated written texts. There is more to cooking than the recipe. There is more to a sport than the rulebook. There is more to TTRPGS than the rulebook, character sheet, or other associated literature. We typically talk more about playing the game and the processes around it. We may argue about the rulebooks, much as sports fans argue about its rules or changes thereof (e.g., changing the shot clock time, what constitutes a foul, what is a legal catch, what is unsportsmanlike conduct, etc.). This is typically for the sake of making informed rulings.
Something can be literary AND something else. It's not all or nothing. That RPGs are more than just the literature and literary elements doesn't mean that they suddenly cease to be literature and/or literary. Since literature encompasses all things written, RPGs cannot be "not-literature." RPGs can fail to be one of the sub-categories, such as high quality literature, though.