Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

[Imaro]

What some players find interesting, other players will not. Different players have different interests. Is that surprising?

Nope that's also a possibility... you're the one who immediately and only blamed it on lack of clarity.

Well, I'm trying to imagine how you're suggesting a GM make a situation more interesting through focusing on presentation. Embellishment of the language used seems to have been something that was talked about in this thread, but maybe you have something else in mind.

Ok maybe you don't get that flowery language is not the only way (and sometimes not at all a way) to impart literary quality.

 

[Hriston]

Nope that's also a possibility... you're the one who immediately and only blamed it on lack of clarity.

No, I didn't. I said that provided sufficient clarity in its presentation, a situation would be found interesting or not based on its own merits. That puts the blame for lack of interest squarely on the situation, not the presentation.

Ok maybe you don't get that flowery language is not the only way (and sometimes not at all a way) to impart literary quality.

No, it's more that when faced with an uninteresting situation, I doubt that any amount of *showmanship* is going to trick the players into thinking the situation is interesting. If the situation is interesting, then I'm not sure what the presentational artistry is meant to do.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Hriston]

Now we're back to both being equal. The bolded above is true. However...

If the descriptions are non-existent or dull, the players are going to cease getting together as their characters to engage with situations presented in the game, making those situations subordinate to the good descriptions.

Both are necessary to engage the players and keep them coming back.

No one is arguing for dull descriptions. The fact that situations must be described has also been noted in the OP and elsewhere. None of this suggests to me, however, that descriptions of content in an RPG must be of a literary quality for the players to be interested in the game's premise and situations, which is, I think, a common goal of RPG play.

Descriptions are what make the situation interesting. I can give you a situation of 10 gargoyles on a hill. One DM will make it bland and dull, the other through descriptions will make it interesting and exciting.

How does describing an uninteresting situation differently, without changing any of the actual content, suddenly make it interesting?

Yep. I've been in RPGs that were dull and played like a board game. Bored game?

And here you're suggesting that RPGs that lack "flowery language" are dull and resemble board games. I'm sure you can see this is just a statement of your preference.

 

[hawkeyefan]

1. this most definitely was not what the main disagreement has been about... no one (at least as far as I know except maybe for you) is arguing which is more meaningful between clarity and literary quality... the disagreement has been around whether literary quality as a whole is core to roleplaying or not.

See Hussar's post about a detailed map versus a basic "no frills" map, or a detailed miniature rather than a board game pawn, and so on. See Maxperson's posts about how unless something is described well, players will lost interest.

These examples make a correlation between "more" and "better".

2. This is a false dichotomy since nothing about literary quality necessitates lack of clarity.

Why, inherently, would you have to sacrifice one to get the other(s)?

It's not a false dichotomy. I'm not saying it must happen, simply that it may. Ideally, it wouldn't. But it certainly does at times.

I know from experience, and I am guessing that most of us have similar examples, where I've read some boxed text aloud to my players, and they don't grasp all the details, and then they begin to declare actions that may not actually make sense. So the GM has to clarify things for them....maybe give the specific room dimensions or the number of doors, or the contents of the room and how they may impede movement and so on.

Has something like this really never happened to you in a game? In such cases, perhaps clear and concise language would be preferable to evocative language?

 

[Bedrockgames]

How does describing an uninteresting situation differently, without changing any of the actual content, suddenly make it interesting?

.

This is a very important point. The description isn't what makes a situation in an RPG interesting: the situation is what makes interesting because it is interacting and part of a back and forth conversation. I honestly don't care if the GM is stumbling over words, uses the same adjective twice in a row for no reason, uses a ten dollar word that somewhat misses the mark, when a more precise 1 dollar word would do....those are all things I care about when I am reading quality books. When I am playing a game I am engaged with another human being and through them, a situation as my character. If anything, words that are too literary will often tend to pull me out of that. Which isn't to say it can' the useful to throw in a colorful flourish now and again, or to hone your narration skills. It is just that the performance of narration in a literary style....it isn't why I am there. It isn't why a lot of people are there.

 

[Imaro]

No, it's more that when faced with an uninteresting situation, I doubt that any amount of *showmanship* is going to trick the players into thinking the situation is interesting. If the situation is interesting, then I'm not sure what the presentational artistry is meant to do.

Again you are assuming the situation itself is uninteresting. Which is too say an interesting situation can be made to seem uninteresting, when presented badly.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Has something like this really never happened to you in a game? In such cases, perhaps clear and concise language would be preferable to evocative language?

More than that, I think the questioning the GM about details like that is part of the game. This is why having a human mind there is superior to a video game. Asking questions is part of getting the GM to hammer down the details. Those kinds of details are often not thought of in advance. I try to think of everything I can about places and characters before hand. But if the setting is to feel like a real place, nothing you put on a page is going to be able to capture the endless possibliities of a real place. So you need that questioning and back and forth to help the GM breath life into it. And that isn't about the words the GM uses. It is about the questions the players ask, the content the GM provides, etc. Words can be important, but in this case they are also very superficial. What the GM intends is much more important than how the GM says it. Obviously a GM who can't express their intentions clearly is going to have some issues (though that is honestly what the questioning and answering part of an RPG helps smooth over). But you don't need literary level description to convey your intent with game content.

 

[Imaro]

This is a very important point. The description isn't what makes a situation in an RPG interesting...

Maybe, maybe not... but it certainly can be the deciding factor on whether the players choose to interact with said situation... and thus whether said content ever gets to be a part of the game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

More than that, I think the questioning the GM about details like that is part of the game. This is why having a human mind there is superior to a video game. Asking questions is part of getting the GM to hammer down the details. Those kinds of details are often not thought of in advance. I try to think of everything I can about places and characters before hand. But if the setting is to feel like a real place, nothing you put on a page is going to be able to capture the endless possibliities of a real place. So you need that questioning and back and forth to help the GM breath life into it. And that isn't about the words the GM uses. It is about the questions the players ask, the content the GM provides, etc. Words can be important, but in this case they are also very superficial. What the GM intends is much more important than how the GM says it. Obviously a GM who can't express their intentions clearly is going to have some issues (though that is honestly what the questioning and answering part of an RPG helps smooth over). But you don't need literary level description to convey your intent with game content.

Yes, exactly. This goes back to the fact that a RPG is a conversation. It's a conversation because there's back and forth, there's an exchange of information and ideas that goes both ways.

Generally speaking, we don't hold folks to literary standards when speaking to each other in that capacity.

I don't think that's the same as saying presentation can't matter, but I don't think it's what is most important.