Is RPGing a literary endeavour?

Maxperson · May 27, 2019

Aldarc said:
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.

darkbard · May 27, 2019

Attempting to pigeonhole "literary" or "literature" into objective, unassailable categories is a fool's errand. As [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] points out several times, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has been consistent in his use of a definition for this particular discussion, and he has clarified that definition for the purpose of this discussion when needed.

I think what qualifies as literary/literature and why can make for fascinating analysis, but that is not what's happening here in this thread, at least not any longer.

I also do think [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] is on to something when he says, ultimately, this discussion now has become a mask for playstyle arguments. Of course it has. This is inevitable, for aesthetic judgments are inseperable from "our deeper structures of belief," as literary critic Terry Eagleton calls them:

If it will not do to see literature as an 'objective', descriptive category, neither will it do to say that literature is just what people whimsically choose to call literature. For there is nothing at all whimsical about such kinds of value-judgement: they have their roots in deeper structures of belief which are as apparently unshakeable as the Empire State building. What we have uncovered so far, then, is not only that literature does not exist in the sense that insects do, and that the value-judgements by which it is constituted are historically variable, but that these value-judgements themselves have a close relation to social ideologies. They refer in the end not simply to private taste, but to the assumptions by which certain social groups exercise and maintain power over others.

For any interested in Eagleton's deep examination of the struggles professional literary critics have gone through in engaging a definition of the term, leading to the above conclusion, I refer you to the excellent prefatory chapter to his Literary Theory: An Introduction, "What Is Literature?" linked here for your convenience.

Maxperson · May 27, 2019

Aldarc said:
I do wish that you and Max would stop rudely repeating this strawman argument.

ROFL Since we are not attributing that as an argument to other people, it cannot be a Strawman. Responses that you disagree with don't automatically become Strawman dude. What is rude, though, are false accusations like that.

Maxperson · May 27, 2019

Aldarc said:
\I don't particularly care about meaning (2) because you have asserted repeatedly now that you agree that RPGs would not qualify as (2). So I have been arguing against RPGs as literature on the basis of (1), i.e., Max's use.

I am not making the positive assertion that RPGs qualify as literature. People arguing that RPGs qualify as literature (1) have supplied their definitions. So I am engaging those definitions and arguments. The argumentative onus is not on me to supply a definition of "literature," because I am not the one who making a positive statement.

So let us be clear here where Bedrockgames and I align:
If we define literature as (2), then RPGs are not literature.
If we define literature as (1), then RPGs are not literature.

Yeah. I've been amused at watching you argue that the Moon isn't in orbit around the earth and the Sun won't come up in the morning. The definition of literature is all things written. Period. You can't rationally argue that RPGs aren't literature under the definition of literature. Trying to argue that because RPGs also involve things beyond the literature isn't an argument that they aren't literature.

Maxperson · May 27, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
I am not staking out one particular meaning for Literary. I am pointing out that there are multiple meanings and the crux of this debate centers around posters equivocating around meaning A and meaning B and not recognizing what they are doing. This fundamentally makes the argument impossible to have.

But also I think Aldarc and I have been very clear: no matter what meaning you utilize, it seems pretty shaky to say because roleplaying games involve Literary A, B or C, they are therefore literary endeavors. The cooking and sports analogy is a perfect example of why. Now Maxperson was willing to argue that sports are literary when this point was made. But that is clearly an absurd claim. Also, to what end are we having this discussion about definitions? What is it about RPGs being literary that is important to you Hussar and why are you so insistent that we see RPGs in this way as well? Again, I suspect the answer will bring us to points about playstyle. If that is the case, then make your playstyle claims, don't try to win a playstyle argument by controlling definitions and terms. RPGs are X or are not Y is a classic debating tactic that I've just seen too frequently, and even used myself, in arguments around playstyle. And clearly, based on you and Maxperson's posts, we are debating what should be going on at the gaming table, what GM advice is good or bad, etc. Whether you think me not caring about pacing is a playstyle point that has almost nothing to do with wether pacing is or is not a literary concern. The reason you dislike it is going to be something more like "because it makes the game dull" than "because it isn't literary". So let's focus on what the actual lines of dispute are, rather than fight endlessly over the definition of literary.

You just can't ever get my position right, can you? At this point I think it's deliberate. For someone who cries fallacy as often as you do, you pretty much engage in nothing but fallacy when talking about or responding to me.

I didn't argue that sports were literary. I may have said the written sport rules were literature, and they are. And I made a joke that you could consider D&D a sport by the strict definition of sport, as there is physical exertion(albeit very, very minor) and skill involved with D&D.

Maxperson · May 27, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
and if we use Max Person's usage it is something like A-Words on a page & B-works aiming for higher literary quality. Again the point here is to identify where the equivocation is occurring.

There is no equivocation going on. I never said both of those were one usage, something you would have realized on your own if you were paying attention to what I've been saying. I said literature is by definition(and it is) words on a page. Someone else brought up [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s usage about quality, and I pointed out that if you care about the description(and someone does if they don't want dull description), then quality of the narration is important to them to some degree. That's a different argument.

Bedrockgames · May 27, 2019

Maxperson said:
There is no equivocation going on. I never said both of those were one usage, something you would have realized on your own if you were paying attention to what I've been saying. I said literature is by definition(and it is) words on a page. Someone else brought up [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s usage about quality, and I pointed out that if you care about the description(and someone does if they don't want dull description), then quality of the narration is important to them to some degree. That's a different argument.

Maxperson, you did equivocate, you because then you started arguing, on the basis that RPGs having words on a page makes them literature, that literary quality matters in GMing and in GM narration. Either way, if all you are saying is you think RPGs having words on a page makes them literature, but this in no way has any impact on the remainder of your argument about literary quality: what is the point of this claim?

Bedrockgames · May 27, 2019

Maxperson said:
You just can't ever get my position right, can you? At this point I think it's deliberate. For someone who cries fallacy as often as you do, you pretty much engage in nothing but fallacy when talking about or responding to me.

I didn't argue that sports were literary. I may have said the written sport rules were literature, and they are. And I made a joke that you could consider D&D a sport by the strict definition of sport, as there is physical exertion(albeit very, very minor) and skill involved with D&D.

It isn't deliberate. I was reading your posts literally because that is how it sounded to me. If you were kidding, then fair enough.

Bedrockgames · May 27, 2019

Maxperson said:
The definition of literature is all things written. Period. .

Again Max this isn't how words work. This isn't the end of the definition. There literally isn't a period, but a big qualification. Literature as a word is pretty nuanced, and can carry this broad meaning, but generally doesn't. You can advocate for the broad meaning. But in a thread that began with meaning B, it is strange to do so. Especially when you seem to be making the case for using literary techniques associated with meaning B (or at least arguing that RPGs ought to meet some literary level of quality in their delivery). Either way, you are still not grasping the importance of what Aldarc is saying. Again, if you don't accept that cooking or sports are literature, then you also can't assert that RPGs are literature just because some aspect of them involves text.

Bedrockgames · May 27, 2019

Maxperson said:
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.

But this discussion is also trying to establish what RPGs ought to be doing, and how they ought to be played. People are concerned about whether RPGs can rightly be categorized as literary because there are claims being made that they should abide by literary rules and styles. This is a problem when you are using one point of contact between two mediums (words) and then trying to port in the rules and styles of one medium into the other. They share the fact that they involve written words. Beyond that you can't really say much. You can't say for example, both literature and RPGs involve words, therefore GM narration should abide by the rules of good writing. Because they are different mediums, they will have different rules and concerns. And when they do happen to share a rule or concern, they will handled in very different ways because fundamentally literature and RPGs have totally different aims.