Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

[Bedrockgames]

For me, it would be helpful to hear about their drool or bloodshot eyes. Such descriptions would seed my imagination, immersing me more deeply in the fiction. To the extent that it requires preparation to have such details at hand, then I would think some such prep work is worthwhile and beneficial (whether it is "literary" or not).

To me that is just coloring unless the bloodshot ideas lead somewhere else. When think of a situation like that as a GM my fist thought isn't about description: it is about background (why are the kobolds on the hill? What did they just do? Where are they going? etc). Any details I provide, it is more about those kinds of things than caring about whether I describe them in a sufficiently literary style. So I probably wouldn't mention the eyes. I may mention one is holding a wooden basket filled with books and there is a bloody robe near the fire (if they had just murdered a local official and stolen his belongings for example). But the form of the description isn't that important to me.

 

[Bedrockgames]

They are an attempt at higher quality than 0. I wasn't saying that they achieve high quality, or that it fails to be literary if they do fail to achieve high quality.

But no more than my natural talking style in everyday speech. I keep my games very conversational. I am not interested in stylizing my narration or consciously narrating a scene. I just converse with the players and don't think much about the words I use.

This is another Strawman, but not one which I think you made intentionally. I think you really don't understand our side of the argument. Nobody over here is saying that "RPGs are about or must involve attaining greater literary heights." First off, RPGs aren't "about" anything. Or more accurately, they are about a great many things. Secondly, we've never said that DM descriptions must involve attaining greater literary heights. We have said that 1. Those descriptions are literary, and that is factually true. Even for something as simple as, "The kobolds are three foot dog men." 2. RPGs contain qualitative literary description.

People keep saying this, then they also keep saying how important quality in the description is. And what is the purpose of identifying the narrative aspect of RPGs as literary if not to make a further point about how you ought to narrate. It seems any time the question of an ought is raised by your side in this discussion, I am in strong disagreement. And the ought very much appears to stem from the notion that RPGs are a literary endeavor (or involve literary elements). Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think this is a straw man. If I hadn't spent half the thread arguing with people that descriptions don't have to be high quality to be good in an RPG, then I might see your point. But since people leaning on literary also seem to be advocating for emulating literary measures of quality....what should I think here?

 

[pemerton]

I'm intrigued by this conflict and how you think it should best be resolved. I am largely sold on the idea that crafting meaningful situations that draw the players in is more central to the activity of RPGs than working on descriptive language and whatnot. With that said, however, fantastic descriptions and unique details are often the things that I, as a player, latch onto and remember. Somewhere upthread people were talking about kobolds on a hill. For me, it would be helpful to hear about their drool or bloodshot eyes. Such descriptions would seed my imagination, immersing me more deeply in the fiction. To the extent that it requires preparation to have such details at hand, then I would think some such prep work is worthwhile and beneficial (whether it is "literary" or not).

Can I pick up on your example (bolded by me to call it out) and a possible risk in play? Not to denigrate the example, but to try to connect it into how I'm thinking about things.

It seems to me that it is possible that the GM might narrate the koblds' drool and bloodshot eyes, hoping and intending to evoke a particular response and engagement from the players, only instead to trigger responses about the kobolds having had a hard night out, being stone/hungover, etc. (Similar to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s reference, I think upthread, to players making d*ck jokes.)

This is a risk that arises in the spontaneous back-and-forth of RPGing that doesn't come up the same way in a book. A reader might snigger at some line or phrase in a work, but there's at least a tenable sense of "work" in which that response leaves the work itself unchanged. Whereas when we think of the RPG experience as yielding a "work", the player response can't be excluded in the same way.

So to begin an answer to your question - and it's not more than a beginning - while prep can of course be helpful (for everything from thinking up situations, to thinking up choice phrases, to drawing some maps or pictures that might be useful for communicative or - in some RPGs - resolution purposes), I think the nature of RPGing will always tend to bring the dynamics of the here-and-now to the fore.

 

[Maxperson]

Instead: tell us about how you see RPGs working. For instance, what do you see as the role of situation in RPGing. Why do you think the narratie crat with which a situation is presented is so important?

What is it that you think we've been doing this whole time? It's not engaging in playstyle wars or pushing a playstyle agenda.

 

[Maxperson]

But no more than my natural talking style in everyday speech. I keep my games very conversational. I am not interested in stylizing my narration or consciously narrating a scene. I just converse with the players and don't think much about the words I use.

That's fine. It doesn't require you to think about how and what you narrate. Even if you are not conscious of it, it's still there. Let's go back to 13 kobolds on a hill. That's the situation. Adding a description, even in normal language enhances the quality of the situation. Telling the players that there are 13 three foot dog men up on the hill is better than the above. It gets better still if you say something like, "You see 13 three foot dog men up on the hill dancing around a stump." With just that little bit of description, you have now taken a boring situation, 13 kobolds on a hill, and turned it into an interesting one. Are they engaged in a ritual? Dancing? Having fun in the moonlight? Casting a magic spell? Something else? Investigation by the players will determine that. You don't need to think about things like, "Green ichor drips down their faces." or "You see bits of the kobold's last meal stuck in his teeth." to be literary or to have a description that enhances the situation.

 

[pemerton]

tell us about how you see RPGs working. For instance, what do you see as the role of situation in RPGing. Why do you think the narratie crat with which a situation is presented is so important?

What is it that you think we've been doing this whole time? It's not engaging in playstyle wars or pushing a playstyle agenda.

To elaborate on my question, then: upthread [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] seemed to assert, or at least very strongly imply, that whether or not a situation is interesting is a player-independent state of affairs. Do you agree?

What do you think the GM should have regard to in coming up with situations? [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], in other threads over many years, has posted that the GM should always author scenarios without regard to which players and/or PCs will engage with them. Do you agree?

Upthread [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has complained about players who just want the GM to "roll up the plot wagon". What do you think the players have a duty to bring to the table? For instance, do you think the players have a duty to be enthusiastic about the situation the GM presents?

Not at all far upthread [MENTION=6831843]Be[/MENTION]drockgame posited a contrast between GM as storyteller/entertainer and GM as facilitator/adjudicator. Do you think this is a useful contrast? If so, which side of it do you favour? If not, why not?

Upthread - both a long way upthread, and in my past few posts - I've made some comments about what I see as possible tensions between a GM issuing an invitation to respond via narration and a GM aiming at literary quality in his/her narration. Do you agree that those tensions obtain? If so, what do you do about it? If no, why not?

These are some of the matters, most of them raised in this thread, that I think might be more interesting to discuss than the meaning of the word "literary".

 

[Imaro]

To elaborate on my question, then: upthread @Imaro seemed to assert, or at least very strongly imply, that whether or not a situation is interesting is a player-independent state of affairs. Do you agree?

Just to be clear...I never asserted or implied this. It can be but like most things there's no absolute, 100% all the time answer.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think of all people on this thread, I have the most reason to be wary of Pemerton's posts (if you think that thread was bad, read the racist colonialist orcs thread). When I saw the OP I initially read it in a negative light. But I made a point of re-reading to see if I was reading my own feelings into it. I reached the conclusions this was very different from our previous discussion. Also, in that thread, I was guilty of plenty of emotional and angry posts myself. Just because I was ticked off at Pemerton in that thread (and I think with some fair amount of good reason), doesn't mean I need to always be negatively disposed towards him. As I took pains to say in that thread, I do admire Pemerton's intelligence and I do admire his ability to make a good argument. I would be foolish not to consider his posts fairly because when he does make a good point, it is often insightful.

I don't see him denigrating a style in this case. In fact in this argument, I think it is the other side that is largely doing the denigrating. Just because I disagreed with him before or thought he was being a bit rude about something before, doesn't mean he is always wrong or that I, and others, are never also being rude. I would encourage you to read some of the posts by yourself and by others on your side of this debate again and then look at our responses to them. There have been moments where I've responded more emotionally than I would have liked, but on the whole I feel I have been reacting fairly calmly given the tone of some of the posts directed at me.

Also, please don't go mining my prior posts to post a gotcha of me in this thread. I understand why you are doing it, but in my view, that doesn't show a lot of good faith. If I have to defend not only my posts on this thread, but posts I've made in previous threads, that isn't exactly a friendly discussion and starts to feel more like an inquisition.

That's fine. It doesn't require you to think about how and what you narrate. Even if you are not conscious of it, it's still there. Let's go back to 13 kobolds on a hill. That's the situation. Adding a description, even in normal language enhances the quality of the situation. Telling the players that there are 13 three foot dog men up on the hill is better than the above. It gets better still if you say something like, "You see 13 three foot dog men up on the hill dancing around a stump." With just that little bit of description, you have now taken a boring situation, 13 kobolds on a hill, and turned it into an interesting one. Are they engaged in a ritual? Dancing? Having fun in the moonlight? Casting a magic spell? Something else? Investigation by the players will determine that. You don't need to think about things like, "Green ichor drips down their faces." or "You see bits of the kobold's last meal stuck in his teeth." to be literary or to have a description that enhances the situation.

That they are dancing is more about content than description. The thing that makes the scene more interesting is that the kobolds are dancing for some reason, not how the GM describes the dance

 

[Bedrockgames]

Also not sure why my posts keep including that quote

 

[pemerton]

upthread [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] seemed to assert, or at least very strongly imply, that whether or not a situation is interesting is a player-independent state of affairs.

Just to be clear...I never asserted or implied this. It can be but like most things there's no absolute, 100% all the time answer.

OK. In that case I think it's fairly clear why two GMs might present the same situation with the same degree of clarity and at one table get buy-in while at the other table it falls flat.

Or in other words, the answer to the question you posed here seems fairly straightforward:

If what you are claiming above is true then if given the same quality content that is communicated clearly there should never be deviation in how players respond to it (either being interested or not interested)... which begs the question if it's purely a question of quality of content and clarity then why can numerous DM's try to hook their players to interact with the same content and get totally different responses from their players insofar as interest is concerned?

Those players who don't find it interesting are probably the ones for whom it is not interesting.