Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

[Satyrn]

Based on my understanding of the history of this thread, and what spawned it, I believe the OP was using "literary" to mean "having a marked style intended to create a particular emotional effect" in order to argue that RPGs do not create "particular emotional effects" through the narration/performance of the DM or players.

That's definitely a more charitable interpretation than mine. Now I feel like I was being mean.

But, again, I'm increasingly of the opinion that most of the debates are rather pointless, especially to the extent that they involve arguments over disputed definitions of terms and/or thinly-disguised "my way is better" assertions of playing.

Aye. I kinda wish that I had never discovered this General Tabletop Discussion forum. Because like Robert Plant "I can't quit you, baby" . . . and unfortunately I can't put it down for a while because I can't get enough satisfaction, I can't get enough RPG action in the D&D forum to hold my attention.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Satyrn]

"Ayup," he said, nodding in vigorous agreement.

 

[Lanefan]

To answer your question, I don't think objecting to an obviously distracting, annoying or disruptive GM narration style, means that performance is prime. Again, I've said I want the GM engaged, invested and speaking in their natural voice. That isn't performance. That is being your relaxed and honest self. Performance is the opposite of that. I don't need the GM to do voices for example for monsters or characters. I don't need the GM to 'act'.

You might not need it, but some of us do. Ideally the GM is giving as much portrayal and expression and voice to each of her NPCs as each player is to her character(s); of course some GMs are better at this than others and those that aren't any good at it are better off not trying. That said, a GM who can't act is in my view starting at a disadvantage over one who can.

If your definition of performance includes those thing, then I would say we have a disagreement over what is important. But yes, a GM talking in a silly voice when it isn't appropriate is going to be odd. Just like screaming in anger for no good reason is going to be odd. I don't think that is about performance as much as it is about being disruptive.

I'm not talking about "silly voice when it isn't appropriate" and I don't think anyone else is either. I'm talking about a) voice appropriate to the character whose words are being spoken and to a lesser extent b) voice appropriate to the scene being narrated or described e.g. the horror-scene example noted upthread.

 

[Lanefan]

Clear enough, but it doesn't capture what I'm talking about, because - for instance - it renders ordinary conversation a species of performance.

That's because it is, most of the time.

And that's when you're just "being yourself". When you're trying to play a role (which is the very definition of acting) in a role-playing game then yes, it's all to some extent performance.

And I realize people are trying to load more concepts onto performance than just acting. But the fact is, if acting and literal performance are not important to me, I am not going to accept it as a term (especially when it is being positioned as 50% of play).

Denying the whole concept just because you don't like it seems a bit over-the-top somehow.

 

[Lanefan]

I play mainly online as well too. But this is actually one of my pet peeves as a player. Let me imagine the character based on the information you give, don't waste times showing me pictures of what they might look like. I will take how I imagine an NPC any day over stock art from the internet.

Problem with that is, every person at the table is going to end up with a different mental image of what each character looks like. Better if the player - who in theory has final say on her own character's appearance - comes up with a mental image of that character then either finds something close to that image online or (if talent and skill allow) draws it herself. Then everyone has a common image to work from when picturing this character in whatever situation it's in at the time.

What is wrong with black and white line map art (particularly stuff by Dyson Logos)?

It is a game of imagination. I don't see why we need more than that to fuel the fun.

I agree that sometimes less can be more - give me a simple easy to read map any day over an artistic nightmare such as the maps in many DCCRPG modules, for example. But, at other times more can be more; and in this category I put character descriptions and-or images.

 

[Lanefan]

You seem to be setting up a contrast - performance intended to creata a mental image of who the PC is vs dice bot with a heart beat - that doesn't correspond to my own RPGing experiences.

Central to player-side RPGing is action declaration. That's how the player reveals who his/her PC is. Whereas being a dicebot suggests that someone else (perhaps the GM?) is deciding what the actions are.

Action declaration is but one avenue of revealing who a PC is, and by no means the primary one.

What mostly reveals who a PC is, at least in terms of how the other PCs perceive her, are the words she says and how she says them when interacting with the other PCs through direct roleplay*. This is where player performance comes in - a player or GM who puts some expression and-or voice talents into playing her PCs is ironclad guaranteed to give those characters more personality and memorability than a player or GM who roleplays every character the same (i.e. as herself) and relies on game mechanics to provide the differentiation between one and the next.

* - and it's on the GM to allow time at the table for this to happen, and not interrupt it when it does happen by jumping to the next scene or encounter before it has played out.

 

[Hussar]

Well said [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION].

One of my biggest pet peeves is when one player turns to another at the table and says, "What race is your character again? Were you human or elf?" Because, to me, that just screams that the performance of that player is so flat and uninteresting that the fact that this character isn't even human isn't readily apparent at the table.

I'm not talking about someone simply forgetting. We all do that. I'm talking about the other three or four players at the table having zero idea what species the character is.

It drives me straight up the wall. Granted, it's a pet peeve, so, it bothers me more than it probably should, but, it does get to the heart of what we're talking about. The performance/presentation/whateverdahellyawannacallit is so flat and uninspired that folks at the table have zero idea what you are actually portraying.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Problem with that is, every person at the table is going to end up with a different mental image of what each character looks like. Better if the player - who in theory has final say on her own character's appearance - comes up with a mental image of that character then either finds something close to that image online or (if talent and skill allow) draws it herself. Then everyone has a common image to work from when picturing this character in whatever situation it's in at the time.

I couldn't disagree more. We don't all need the same mental image of everything in the game. If it is super important that your character has purple hair, then mention it a lot. But otherwise I vastly prefer a game where there is room for us to be imagining things differently. RPGs are not a visual medium. Showing me pictures of everything, is something I personally find takes away from the the experience.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I agree that sometimes less can be more - give me a simple easy to read map any day over an artistic nightmare such as the maps in many DCCRPG modules, for example. But, at other times more can be more; and in this category I put character descriptions and-or images.

And this is a fine preference to have. But it is just that: a preference. It isn't an essential aspect of roleplaying.