Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

[Bedrockgames]

Maybe, but those posts with lots of words that you say you don't read are often the ones that best explain the position. It seems cobunter productive to complain about not understanding a position, while not reading the posts best able to help you learn what the position is.

First, like I said I am just fielding replies to my response to the OP. If people want me to understand their replies they should be able to convey their position clearly in a single post rather than demand I read the entire thread (or sift through a whole thread looking for a gem the6 wrote two days ago).

Second, if you can’t clearly express your idea in a single reply, maybe there is an issue with your style of communication and not with my lack of desire to read a whole thread?

Third, reading a whole thread is time consuming. I am fine getting the gist of a thread or responding to an OP and fielding replies to my response, but I view it as a very serious waste of time to go hunting for posts in a thread or to read one from start to finish. This has nothing to do with my ability to read ‘lots of words’, and everything to do with valuing my time. I am happy to read lots of words. I am not interested in reading lots of words by random posters on the internet.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It happens. For truth!

Just the other day I was jumped in a dark alley by a playstyle and told that if I didn't use its talking points, I would sleep with the dragon turtles.

I didn’t express the concept well, but there is clearly a play style debate under slaying this discussion.

 

[Maxperson]

If you are defining presentation as anything that isn't content, well, that is so broad, anything in the category has to be important (but it is also pretty useless to have such a broad category).

Categories are what they are, broad or not. Content is very different than presentation, but the only way to get content across to someone else is to present it to them somehow. That makes it useful to know that presentation is the other category. If presentation is so broad that you are having difficulty with it when it comes to presenting an idea to us, rather than complain about how broad presentation is, there are these things called sub-categories that you can use to help you out. Simply identify the type of presentation you are talking about and then continue on.

But honestly I feel like you are paying lip service to this, while using the distinction to advance a clear playstyle argument (and it is pretty obvious Pemerton is picking up on the same thing). Neither of us have particularly objected to presentation as a thing that matters. We've objected to the way you've focused on the performative aspects of it. Underlying this whole discussion is a divide over whether the players and GM are there performing for one another or if they are there interacting and conversing with one another. I do not see the game as a performance.

The game isn't performance. It's also not content, communication, literary or anything else. It's all of the above, depending on what aspect you are talking about. Trying to label an RPG as one thing is an exercise in futility, and will result in push-back by people who realize that RPGs are comprised of many different things. People will also tend to push back hardest about their favorite aspect of the game. This is not "advancing an agenda." Rather, it's just human nature.

 

[Maxperson]

I didn’t express the concept well, but there is clearly a play style debate under slaying this discussion.

That was just a joke.

What I said in my last post is not, though. I don't think there is any sort of agenda going on here. People just disagree with blanket statement X, and when people disagree, they tend to do so from their favorite aspect of the game that disputes the overgeneralized term being used. That doesn't make it an agenda, though.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[pemerton]

the GM may well also be invested and excited about the ancestry information as well, and that will come through. But it isn't a performance or even a presentation. It is a sincere and honest human expression in a conversation. There is a difference.

I agree with all this.

I'd probably talk about growing up underground, reference my appearance by mentioning the beard and spend some time grooming it. I'd probably reference relations between my people and various other people as being different than everyone else's. My food choices would be different. References to my stature might go some ways. The fact that I don't like boats or horses might be a bit cliche, but, it does get the point across. Historical facts about my people in comparison to the rest of the party. Differences in approaches - the fact that I live about twice or three times as long as a human would give me a pretty different perspective on things. The fact that I see in the dark and have resistance to poisons would likely come up at some point.

Darkvision and poison resistance seem like elements in action declaration and action resolution rather than performance/presentation, so I'll put them to one side.

In most FRPGing, grooming one's beard, choosing one's food, not liking boat,s is all just colour. If my familiarity with the underground, or the distinctive histories or politics of my people, actually matter in play then that will come out in action declaration - as it does, for instance, for the dwarf in my 4e game.

Or to take another example: in the most recent RPG session I GMed - a Cthulhu Dark session - one of the PCs had two descriptors: head butler, and proper English gentelman. We didn't need the player to present or perform these descriptors in order to appreciate them - they were manifest from beginning to end in the play of the character: his concerns and motivations, his actions and responses.

Conversely, if the only way that I can tell your character is a butler is because you make references to the sivlerware that have no bearing on the actual play of the game; or if the only way I can tell you're a dwarf is because of your repeated references to your beard that never actually matters to any actions that your character undertakes; then I wonder what the point of the descriptor is at all. How is it actually informing the role you are playing in the game?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Categories are what they are, broad or not. Content is very different than presentation, but the only way to get content across to someone else is to present it to them somehow. That makes it useful to know that presentation is the other category. If presentation is so broad that you are having difficulty with it when it comes to presenting an idea to us, rather than complain about how broad presentation is, there are these things called sub-categories that you can use to help you out. Simply identify the type of presentation you are talking about and then continue on.

I am not seeing how this ads value to play. I absolutely do not need to understand this distinction in order to run or play in a game. And I am not sure the distinction is the best way to categorize key elements of the hobby. I mean I could also divide the game into "rolling dice parts" and "not rolling dice parts". If any of the material being filed under 'presentation' comes up or matters during play, it is done intuitively anyways (and I am not sure things being filed under presentation really reflect the nature of what is going on well). And actively thinking about this distinction during play feels like it would just take me out of the moment. Again what you are offering really is a model, and I think it is a flawed, unproven model. All that is being done here is people are asserting the hobby can be broken up into two broad categories and then giving some vague reasons why that is. I find this a very unpersuasive argument for me to adopt the proposed model. Admittedly my bar is pretty high for accepting a model. For me to accept a model as useful, I need to experience its utility in play repeatedly to the extent that it visibly adds to the experience of play. I am doubtful this content/presentation distinction adds anything at all.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The game isn't performance. It's also not content, communication, literary or anything else. It's all of the above, depending on what aspect you are talking about. Trying to label an RPG as one thing is an exercise in futility, and will result in push-back by people who realize that RPGs are comprised of many different things. People will also tend to push back hardest about their favorite aspect of the game. This is not "advancing an agenda." Rather, it's just human nature.

I am not going to accept it is 'all of the above' simply because you assert that it is. But I do think there are numerous approaches to play and numerous play styles. However I have no interest in getting other people to adopt mine through argumentation. Posters here were doing that and they were drawing on the proposed model in order to advocate for a way of playing the game. I am not saying they are doing it with nefarious intent. But it is definitely something happening in the discussion and that the model is contributing to. But not everyone participating is entering the realm of plakystyle advocacy. I don't think pushing a playstyle is human nature. Also, pushing back against someone who trashes your preferred style is a totally different thing than telling people they should adopt your preferred style (or trying to argue that your preferred style is superior).

 

[Satyrn]

Moose is also after Squirrel, right Natasha'?

No, Max. Moose is a KAOS agent. He's working with Squirrel.