If anyone with professional background in philosophy, wants to weigh in here, I am all ears.
That's been done. You're correct.
I really don't think people understand the degree to which this kind of equivocation is a problem in gaming discussions.
There seems to be an underlying assumption by some posters that any disagreement must be the result of having confused the definition of our terms, and that if only those could be sorted out then everyone would see that what is being said is true or false.
Or, to put it differently, there seems to be some sort of reluctance to recognise and talk about actual differences of opinion.
Hussar seems to be an example, because he keeps insisting that he agrees with me whereas it seems obvious to me, and must be obvious to anyone else who's read this thread, that he has a very different view from me about what is important in RPGing:
So, we're right back to literary = high art.
No.
Not everything the New Yorker reviews is high art.
Not everything that aspires to literary quality achieves it. So even things that aspire to be high art don't always make it.
You have said, quite plainly, that GMs should endeavour to give evocative or literarily pleasing narrations. You have also said that players should be aiming to entertain other participants with their evocative and engaging performances. To put it more genreally, you have said that RPG participants should keep in mind the literary quality of their narration, and aim at it being good. Of course you recognise that
success will probably be mixed.
That is what I'm disagreeing with when I say that RPGing is not a literary endeavour, that it doesn't aim at literary virtues, that
situation and the call to action, rather than
beauty or
wordcraft, is central.
I can cash this out by reference to rulebooks if you like. The 2nd ed AD&D PHB says that a player should try to bring his/her PC to life by entertaining portrayal and characterisation eg does s/he smell? does s/he belch? does s/he finger her prayer beads in moments of indecision? Unlesss I've badly misunderstood you, you agree with this.
Whereas my claim is that that advice is at best tangential, and at worst actively bad, if we want excellent, exciting, engaging, RPGing.
Or an example that came up in this thread. [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] said that a RPG gets better if the GM narrates the dust from the opening of the secret door, adding to the "depth and feel of the game". A lot of GM advice manuals say simiar things. Whereas, as I posted upthread, my advice to a GM on how to add to the depth and feel of the game would be very different: work on your situations, and your consequences, and let the narrative details take care of themselves.