Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

[Bedrockgames]

Which is a fundamental difference between us: as far as I'm concerned entertaining others and being entertained in return are the heart and soul of RPGing (including LARP here); and are what make it a different - and more enjoyable - kind of activity from almost any other.

And this is why the discussion isn't really going anywhere, it is about this divide. I certainly don't mind being entertained by others, I just don't see it as why I am there to game. I am there for the immersive experience and for the interaction with my friends. If I viewed it as them being there to entertain me, it just feels strange. Doesn't mean the session isn't lively, people don't talk in character, or that people don't make one another laugh (they frequently do). It just isn't consciously performative.

 

[pemerton]

The objection has been to the OP basically claiming color is not in fact a core (distinct??? this isn't really clear either IMO) component of roleplaying games

That's actually not what the OP says.

Colour, obviously, is fundamental to heaps of RPGing. (Maybe not some classic dungeoncrawling.) I don't think the word "colour" appears in the OP. The OP does say RPGing requires narration: GMs describe situations - that narration and description will involve colour.

My claim is about the focus of, and foundation of, emotional engagement in RPGing. As the OP says, What matters to me is that the players feel the significance of the situations the GM describes - that they feel the pull to action, and the threats of inaction. That is, that the situation engage and motivate the players as players, not as an audience to a performance.

Doesn't that depend on what the letter is about? And if that impedes clarity... how can you not worry about those things?

I don't know where you see clarity coming from in this discussion.

It's helpful if - say - stereo installation instructions are clear, but that doesn't show that writing such instructions is a literary endeavour.

RPGing involves communication. Communication can be facilitated by clarity. (Though it's a threshold issue, not "the more the better", which already shows us the difference from literary quality.) This doesn't show that RPGing is literary or oriented towards performance.

regardless of the way it is framed (which has changed multiple times), he does not believe that emotional engagement can or should be evoked by player or DM narration of any kind

This is obviously false, given the following from the OP:

RPGing requires narration: GMs describe situations, and players declare actions for their PCs that respond to those situations. But I don't think the literary quality of that narration is important.

What matters to me is that the players feel the significance of the situations the GM describes - that they feel the pull to action, and the threats of inaction. That is, that the situation engage and motivate the players as players, not as an audience to a performance.

There are different ways of evoking emotion by saying things to people. The formal aesthetic qualities of what is said and how it is said (metre and cadence, rhyme, alliteration, precise word choice and word contrast, modulation of tone and volume, etc) is one way. Acting and recitation depend on these devices. When I give a lecture, these are important things.

Another way to evoke emotion by saying things is to say things that hook onto what the interlocutor cares about. This typically does not depend upon those formal aesthetic qualities - one can, for instance, pause and reframe; hesitate, inviting some request for direction or clarifiation from the interlocutor; allow volume and tone to follow emotion rather than lead it.

I'm expressing a view about which RPGing is more like.
[MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] and I disagree on many things about RPGing. But having read Bedrockgames's posts to this thread, I think he understands what I am saying and largely agrees. Oddly enough that happens sometimes!

And on that topic:

I certainly don't mind being entertained by others, I just don't see it as why I am there to game. I am there for the immersive experience and for the interaction with my friends. If I viewed it as them being there to entertain me, it just feels strange. Doesn't mean the session isn't lively, people don't talk in character, or that people don't make one another laugh (they frequently do). It just isn't consciously performative.

This is true for me also.

 

[Hussar]

The point is simple: a novel probably won't move you if it's poorly written. A letter from a family member is likely to move you regardless of how it's written.

RPGing is more like the latter than the former. It's about moving people through shared engagement with an imagined situation, not entertaining people by performing for them.

Nope. You are wrong. It's as simple as that. The point of a letter is to communicate information. That it moves you is because it's from a family member, not the fact that it's a letter. The identical letter, with identical words, written by a complete stranger likely won't engender any emotional response. Since I don't play with family members, it's very unlikely that my friend will engender an emotional response simply because they are my friend. The will, however, engender an emotional response through various techniques - ie. how they present.

And, of course, this ignores the various literary techniques used in an RPG - one doesn't foreshadow in a conversation, for example. One rarely has enough control over reality to use pathetic fallacies (the weather or the environment matches tone and mood). And a host of other literary techniques that we use when crafting scenarios in order to convey mood and tension.

So, no. An RPG is not like writing a letter to a family member, nor is it akin to conversation. Playing an RPG is far, far closer to an improv performance where the players (including the GM) use various techniques to convey feeling, tone and mood - all those things [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] writes off as non-sequiturs since, apparently, it's only important if it's tied to mechanics.

Now, where [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] is wrong is that he's insisting that I'm saying that there are better and worse ways to present. That's not true. Every table will have to make a choice as to how that information is presented. And, hopefully, the table will come to some sort of consensus on how that information is conveyed. Granted, I prefer a particular style, but, that doesn't make it better. But, at some point, that table will have to figure out what presentation style works for that table.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Quick survey for the regulars here:

Let's say that for whatever reason you know going in that tonight's session, where you're playing a well-developed character you're familiar with and enjoy playing, is highly likely to consist of nothing but in-character roleplaying and interactions with other PCs (and maybe NPCs) with no story progress likely to be made and maybe little if any reference to the story at all, and little if any chance of combat (unless the PCs decide to throw down vs each other for some reason). It's not a bookkeeping session, though. Maybe you've decided to play out in detail some discussions the PCs have while on a long ship voyage.

On a scale of 1 (dread) to 10 (bursting) how enthusiastic would you be when looking forward to the session.

I'd be somewhere between 8 and 10, with the variance dependent on situation.

Maybe a 3.

I want there always to be some forward momentum. I don’t mind the occasional dip into in character discussions. In my experience, those usually remain story focused, though. An entire session spent having a conversation that has little to no impact on the game doesn’t really do much for me.

 

[pemerton]

The point of a letter is to communicate information. That it moves you is because it's from a family member, not the fact that it's a letter. The identical letter, with identical words, written by a complete stranger likely won't engender any emotional response.

Yes. This is my point, so I'm not sure why you frame this as disagreeing with me.

Since I don't play with family members, it's very unlikely that my friend will engender an emotional response simply because they are my friend. The will, however, engender an emotional response through various techniques - ie. how they present.

<snip>

An RPG is not like writing a letter to a family member, nor is it akin to conversation. Playing an RPG is far, far closer to an improv performance where the players (including the GM) use various techniques to convey feeling, tone and mood

But this is exactly what I'm talking about.

As I posted I think in my last reply to you, I don't understand what role you think action declaration and the distinctive player role in a RPG are doing. As you describe it, it would make no difference if everyone was working through a rough script but improving the details of characterisation.

 

[Hussar]

It's helpful if - say - stereo installation instructions are clear, but that doesn't show that writing such instructions is a literary endeavour.

Again, considering the immense expenditure companies incur in technical writing, I'm going to say that you are very, very wrong here. It matters a LOT how instructions are written and, for example Ikea, ease of use is often a strong motivator for sales.

You're claiming that so long as the information is there, how it's presented doesn't matter. There's a mountain of evidence out there that says you really aren't correct here.

 

[pemerton]

Let's say that for whatever reason you know going in that tonight's session, where you're playing a well-developed character you're familiar with and enjoy playing, is highly likely to consist of nothing but in-character roleplaying and interactions with other PCs (and maybe NPCs) with no story progress likely to be made and maybe little if any reference to the story at all, and little if any chance of combat (unless the PCs decide to throw down vs each other for some reason). It's not a bookkeeping session, though. Maybe you've decided to play out in detail some discussions the PCs have while on a long ship voyage.

On a scale of 1 (dread) to 10 (bursting) how enthusiastic would you be when looking forward to the session.

Maybe a 3.

I want there always to be some forward momentum. I don’t mind the occasional dip into in character discussions. In my experience, those usually remain story focused, though. An entire session spent having a conversation that has little to no impact on the game doesn’t really do much for me.

A complication for me in responding to Lanefan's question is what is the story which is not progressing?

 

[Hussar]

As I posted I think in my last reply to you, I don't understand what role you think action declaration and the distinctive player role in a RPG are doing. As you describe it, it would make no difference if everyone was working through a rough script but improving the details of characterisation.

What do you think a module is? If not a rough script? Since this whole conversation came out of the notion of using boxed text for modules, it does seem rather apropos. Come right down to it, what do you think happens in most RGP sessions? Do you really believe that most RPG sessions don't have a rough script, typically written by the GM, although, that can vary with more "pass the story stick" style games?

Unless your DM/GM is really, really good at improvising every single session, every single time, and has zero idea where the campaign is moving towards, you have a rough script. And, certainly, if you are using a module, or moreso with an Adventure Path, you have a very strong "rough script".

((BTW, I think I did this right, I think you missed a quote tag in your quote of me, so, if I missed something there, my bad))

 

[pemerton]

Again, considering the immense expenditure companies incur in technical writing, I'm going to say that you are very, very wrong here. It matters a LOT how instructions are written and, for example Ikea, ease of use is often a strong motivator for sales.

People spend millions of dollars painting buildings, too. That doesn't show that painting buildings is per se an artistic endeavour - maybe it is (if we're painting St Peters), maybe it's not (if we're painting a block of flats to protect the exterior against the weather).

I'm a published author in a natural language based but technical discipline. (Or in fact two such disciplines: law and philosophy.) I deliver lectures and other sorts of public or semi-public addresses as a key part of my job. I know a fair bit about writing and a little bit about spoken presentation.

When I referee an article and send it back for rewriting because it's confused; or when I mark up a student's work and tell her or him how it needs to be restructured to make the argument clear; these are not literary considerations. They have nothing to do with evoking emotion through the use of formal compositional/recitational devices.

I guess someone somewhere once has been moved by the ingenuity of the Ikea instructions - the world is full of all types - but I don't think anyone is expecting the instruction drafter to be nominated for the Nobel prize.

 

[hawkeyefan]

A complication for me in responding to Lanefan's question is what is the story which is not progressing?

Yeah, that’s something different at every table, I would guess. For me, it’s a pretty broad category and can consist of a variety of things....which is why if it was somehow avoided entirely in a session, I’d probably not be all that interested.

Thinking of my two current campaigns....a D&D 5e game and a Blades in the Dark game, I’d say that each is probably the “story” of the party or crew. My D&D group has a main opponent they are devoted to defeating, and also personal quests for many characters as well. My Blades game (and most Blades games, I expect) is about the criminal enterprise of the crew, and its successes and failures.

I’m having a hard time conceiving what a session for either game would even look like if it didn’t connect to the group in some way.