Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

[Gorgon Zee]

[MENTION=57112]
... I don't think that [OSR] is a literary endeavour, because it's not an artistic endeavour at all.
... extrapolating and building on a fiction within parameters of theme/interest/"meaningfulness" is not about quality of form
... the sorts of pacing issues ... is more about what to say when then how deftly one says it.

... [RPGs are] not about being an entertainer/performer, although hopefully the participants find it entertaining/enjoyable.

It strongly seems that you are starting from a premise that says RPGs are purely game and have no attributes that might be related to an artistic endeavor. I guess that's a point of view, but you shouldn't be surprised when most people have the experience that:

* OSR can be as much art as DramaSystem.
* Bad writing (the form of presentation) limits people's enjoyment.
* GMs who phrase descriptions well are more fun than ones who simply indicate bare facts.
* They like playing with people whose characters are performed rather than merely described.

I think you've made your position pretty clear, but honestly, I think you're way out on your own. I don't think anyone I know would be equally happy with a poorly delivered description read from box text as they would be from a well-delivered description with good phrasing, intonation and vocal variation.

 

[pemerton]

It strongly seems that you are starting from a premise that says RPGs are purely game and have no attributes that might be related to an artistic endeavor.

I'm not saying that. I think my fairly long post not far upthread should make that clear.

I guess that's a point of view, but you shouldn't be surprised when most people have the experience that:

* OSR can be as much art as DramaSystem.
* Bad writing (the form of presentation) limits people's enjoyment.
* GMs who phrase descriptions well are more fun than ones who simply indicate bare facts.
* They like playing with people whose characters are performed rather than merely described.

<snip>

I don't think anyone I know would be equally happy with a poorly delivered description read from box text as they would be from a well-delivered description with good phrasing, intonation and vocal variation.

I think "equally happy" isn't the right notion here.

Everything else being equal, most people prefer to eat their food of nice rather than chipped crockery, but I think that leaves it an open question whether quality of crockery is inherent to the art of cooking well.

Likewise, a concert is better if the seats are comfortable, but is quality of seating inherent to the art of performing well?

My contention is that emphasising quality of writing and quality of "thespianism", in the context of RPGing, places the emphasis on what is weakest rather than strongest about RPGing as an art form.

 

[Lanefan]

Everything else being equal, most people prefer to eat their food of nice rather than chipped crockery, but I think that leaves it an open question whether quality of crockery is inherent to the art of cooking well.

Likewise, a concert is better if the seats are comfortable, but is quality of seating inherent to the art of performing well?

Both affect the presentation of the end product and thus the consumers' enjoyment of such; and that's what we're talking about here: presentation.

Someone could write the best, most engaging adventure module of all time but a GM who doesn't present it well at the table is still going to butcher it in the players' eyes (a la uncomfortable seats at an excellent concert). Conversely, a horrible module can be made very engaging by a GM who presents it with some flair and dramatics and humour (a la luxury seats and free wine at an otherwise unremarkable concert).

My contention is that emphasising quality of writing and quality of "thespianism", in the context of RPGing, places the emphasis on what is weakest rather than strongest about RPGing as an art form.

First off, as I just noted quality of writing and quality of thespianism don't have the same effect at the table: the perceived quality of the writing can be and often is determined by its presentation at the table, and the quality of that presentation is often based on the dramatic flair of the GM.

Post hoc (and this is the literary part) the later perceived memory of the game can be greatly affected by how well or not the game logs are written and recorded, where such is done at all.

 

[dragoner]

The *Literary* aspect of this discussion, appears similar to the concept of "Perceived Quality" we learned in business school:

Perceived quality can be defined as the customer's opinion about the overall quality or image of the product or service or the brand itself with respect to its purpose of use as against its alternatives. It might not be linked to the actual product but is more skewed towards the brand image, customer experience with the brand and its other products, peer opinions, etc. thus perceived quality differs from objective quality, product-based quality and manufacturing quality.


Perceived quality is intangible. It cannot be measured on quantitative grounds, preferably because judgements about what is important to the customers varies widely across different personalities, needs and preferences.

https://www.mbaskool.com/business-concepts/marketing-and-strategy-terms/13570-perceived-quality.html

The bolded part seems relevant in the each person is looking for something different from the game.

 

[pemerton]

Both affect the presentation of the end product and thus the consumers' enjoyment of such; and that's what we're talking about here: presentation.

Someone could write the best, most engaging adventure module of all time but a GM who doesn't present it well at the table is still going to butcher it in the players' eyes

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.

 

[Imaro]

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.

Is it? What's antithesis to rpg's with pre-written prose describing a location? A monster or npc's appearance? How about for relaying information?

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.

Ignoring the fact that writing up things for their game is enjoyable to some/many GM's (and may even be integral to their ability to run), and that for some/many players it can enhance and/or be integral for their enjoyment and participation ...There are also pre-written adventures, campaign settings, etc. that have been used by new and seasoned GM's alike as tools that enhance and enable "the play" as much if not more than they are a solitary endeavor...

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.

Why can't that robust imagination and creative urge be enhanced by (or conversely enhance) recitation and thespianism? I've yet to see you state a solid reason as to why these things must be at odds??

EDIT: I also don't see why being people with robust imaginations and creative urges puts one at odds with wanting to recite pre-written prose for ones game or act out NPC's and PC's??

EDIT 2: I feel like perhaps you are advocating for a specific style of play which may be antithesis to pre-written prose and thespianism... though I'm hard pressed to think of a style that would be in direct opposition to those two things... if this is the case perhaps you should narrow what your statements are trying to encompass from roleplaying to the particular style you are speaking to...

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[the Jester]

Is, or can, a choose your own adventure book be what you consider"literary"? What about classic text adventures?

 

[pemerton]

Is, or can, a choose your own adventure book be what you consider"literary"? What about classic text adventures?

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

Choose your own adventures aspire to be literary in the sense I've got in mind - they are in effect novels (novel bundles? novel trees?). They don't offer the same sort of situated-in-the-fiction engagment as a RPG, and a fair bit of the reader's time is spent doing just that - reading - and so the quality of the prose is fairlyintegral to the whole enterprise.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

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.

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.