Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

[Bedrockgames]

No, Max. Moose is a KAOS agent. He's working with Squirrel to promote a playful agenda.

Every so often I am reminded why I don't post in threads with this circle.

 

[Satyrn]

I shall edit out the direct reference to your earlier comment as an apology, then. I do not want to use my humour as a weapon.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I shall edit out the direct reference to your earlier comment as an apology, then. I do not want to use my humour as a weapon.

Don't edit it. Leave it. I am just pointing out people in these threads are often quite rude. I definitely can post snarky remarks from time to time. But the amount of ridicule lobbed my way in the past three pages is pretty off-putting. If you disagree with me, that is totally fine. We can have disagreements about this stuff. But do you need to mock me like I am some kind of Alex Jones theorists because I think people are pushing for play styles in the thread? And do you need to mock my ability to read because I don't want to spend hours pouring over an entire thread?

 

[Satyrn]

Don't edit it. Leave it.

Too late!

I editted it before I told you I was going to. I learned from KAOS and SPECTRE what not to do.

This villain is chillin' with winnin'

 

[uzirath]

In most FRPGing, grooming one's beard, choosing one's food, not liking boats is all just colour.

I am mostly on board with the argument you've presented in this increasingly labyrinthine thread. But there's something here that feels off to me. When I guide new players, I often encourage them to consider minor elements about their characters that will be fun and memorable at the table. In other words, colour (or color, on my side of the pond). These tidbits often generate great interplay between the characters, despite the fact that they may have no impact on the stakes of the story (at first anyway, see below for more on this). "Don't make fun of Grunk's beard!" "Elspeth will eat anything!" Some games have minor mechanics for this sort of thing, like the concept of quirks in GURPS, but I rarely see anybody invoking the mechanics for serious in-game effects. It's all just background colour to breathe life into the fiction.

Conversely, if the only way that I can tell your character is a butler is because you make references to the silverware 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?

There is a fluidity between how these details may impact the "actual play of the game." Maybe when I create my dwarf, I don't imagine the beard thing will be significant. I haven't written anything about it on my character sheet. But the beard jokes gain traction at the table and I start thinking more about the cultural significance of my beard, describing the intricate braids and beads that represent various elements of my character's background. Eventually, a good GM picks up on this and may develop hooks and connections. Maybe we meet another dwarf whose "beard writing" reveals something about them. Or we end up in a scenario where my beard is threatened (or I need to be in a clean-shaven disguise). I never consciously declared to the GM that these things are central features of my character, but over time these story elements can grow and become more significant. This sort of promotion and demotion of roleplaying elements seems to be a significant component of most games that I've played, regardless of the system.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

No, but you do need to understand it to have a relevant conversation about the topic on a forum.

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.

It isn't about thinking about these things during game play. It's about understanding the various points of people discussing the topic in this thread. You're taking something and trying to apply it in a way other than what is intended, and then calling it flawed.

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).

Here are some facts for you.

1. I can perform during an RPG, therefore an RPG is performance.

2. I can narrate during an RPG, therefore an RPG is narration.

3. I can write during an RPG, therefore an RPG is literary.

And so on.

You may not use all of those things all of the time, or even all of those things period. However, just because YOU don't perform, doesn't mean that performance is not a part of the RPG. It just means that you don't engage that aspect of it. The same holds true for the rest.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Name is Boris! Max is disguise. It is good disguise, no?

 

[Maxperson]

Don't edit it. Leave it. I am just pointing out people in these threads are often quite rude. I definitely can post snarky remarks from time to time. But the amount of ridicule lobbed my way in the past three pages is pretty off-putting.

The humor is just that, humor. It's not ridicule lobbed your way or any other way. Some of it is a bit of ribbing.

 

[Hussar]

Honestly I'd rather have a player at my table who speaks with bad accents, than a player who has this attitude (and I am not particularly fond of accents or funny voices).

Seriously? You have no problem with players who play non-humans exactly the same as human characters to the point where no one at the table knows the race of the character? That it comes as a surprise when it is revealed (you're an elf? Really? Since when?)? Well, takes all kinds I suppose. To me, it's no different than any other aspect of your character. A successful portrayal of a character means that everyone at the table has a pretty decent mental image of your character, even if some of the details might be different.

This stuff is all fine if you like it. But these are very much the considerations that someone makes when they are acting. Not everyone is going to play a dwarf this way. I think on the spectrum of performance most people are not as far on the performative end as you, and many people are on the opposite end. I think it is still roleplaying if they are not doing any of this. Even if all they are doing is playing themselves with dwarf stats, that is still roleplaying as far as I am concerned. In fact, I'd argue that sometimes over emphasis on these kinds of considerations takes players more out of the moment and more out of the conversation because they are focused more on how they are presenting the character than on reacting to what is going on naturally.

If all you are doing is playing with dwarf stats, isn't that the definition of roll play? If the only reason that you are playing a dwarf is that Con bonus and darkvision, well, I'd call that pretty poor play. There's nothing there for anyone else at the table to play off of, there's nothing for the DM to grab hold of, there's just a cypher character that exists as nothing more than a bunch of numbers. And, yup, I'm going to call that out as pretty poor play.

Play the character you made. If I wanted to play nothing but a cloud of numbers, I'll stick to video games.

I agree that one is not really more important than the other. I've seen a great DM take poor content and make it interesting and fun. I've also seen a poor DM take fantastic content and ruin it. However, I've also seen that the good content makes it easier for the typical DM to make the game fun, while bad content will often stymie the typical DM, so content is equally important in my opinion.

OH, ABSOLUTELY. 100% agree with this. I in no way am trying to say that performance or presentation or whatever you want to call it is more important. It isn't. Content is extremely important.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Good grief [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], how many times do you need it explained? I KNOW, since you've entered this thread, I've explained the points pretty clearly at least twice. Now, you might disagree with the points, fair enough, but, complaining that you're not understanding it because no one is taking the time to explain it seems a bit disingenuous.