Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

[Bedrockgames]

If it's words on paper, it's literature. Literally.

Using "literature" as a term that only applies to high-quality work is a redefintion of the word, though one that - sadly - has come to be somewhat accepted over time.

But words on paper is kind of meaningless in terms of this discusdiin. My issue is words on paper is being used in order to get toward much bigger statements about how RPGs should be like literature. If the argument was just RPGs should have words on paper, I wouldn’t be disagreeing so much

 

[Hriston]

Quality of the descriptions doesn't have to be THE focus. There probably isn't even a single focus of the game. However, I have yet to play with someone who gives bare bones descriptions such as, "In the room are 2 orcs." They generally add at least a little bit to the descriptions to make them more interesting, and that is the DM attempting to add quality to the narration.

I don't think adding a small number of words to "In the room are 2 orcs" necessarily makes describing a situation in an RPG a literary endeavor in the way that was intended by the OP.

Not at all, but this isn't about playstyles, regardless of how much you and @Bedrockgames want to make it about playstyle.

I don't think whether a player is interested in a particular situation is necessarily a matter of playstyle.

 

[Hussar]

I know these questions are intended as rhetorical, but if I treat them as literal then the answer is I don't know.

The game seems to be 3e D&D (Scarred Lands), but who are the PCs? Who are the players? Do they have any reason to give a toss about the glutton Titan Gaurak?

So what?

You’re telling me that both answers would equally evoke a response? That neither one would make the slightest difference in tone or anything at the table?

You must have the most time deaf players in the world.

 

[Hussar]

The choice isn't between narration of literary quality or dull narration. Narration can be both, or it can be neither.



The things you describe are content. How the orcs and the hill look and what small actions the orcs are performing are color, which is a type of content that informs the mood. The fact that you're creating this content on the fly and adding it to the situation doesn't mean it isn't content. How you describe it and whether your description has formal quality is orthogonal to what you describe.



I'd assumed you were responding to the part of my post you quoted. I said you didn't need to use flowery language to play an RPG. You responded that you've played in games that were dull and boring. If you didn't mean that games without flowery language are dull and boring, then I don't know what you mean.

Hang on. I got taken to task by [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] not too long ago for including all these things on conveying dwarfiness at the table and got told it wasn’t content. It was in fact pointless color that adds nothing to the game.

So which is it?

 

[Hussar]

I don't think adding a small number of words to "In the room are 2 orcs" necessarily makes describing a situation in an RPG a literary endeavor in the way that was intended by the OP.



I don't think whether a player is interested in a particular situation is necessarily a matter of playstyle.

But, apparently it does because at least [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] insists that the words that are added matter a LOT. To the point of not liking a game that adds the wrong words - as the Vengaurak example shows. So obviously word choice is extremely important.

 

[uzirath]

If it's words on paper, it's literature. Literally.

Using "literature" as a term that only applies to high-quality work is a redefintion of the word, though one that - sadly - has come to be somewhat accepted over time.

I completely sympathize with this position when it comes to resisting snooty academics^* who might only grudgingly accept Lord of the Rings (for example) as real literature, but the fact is that the word "literature" has been used in a restrictive sense for at least as long as it has been used to mean anything printed. Ye olde OED lists "written work valued for superior or lasting artistic merit" before it lists "printed matter of any kind." It includes quoted examples of people using the word in its more restrictive sense, and even of people complaining about how some other people are using it too broadly. (From the Daily News in 1895: "In canvassing, in posters, and in the distribution of what, by a profane perversion of language, is called ‘literature’.") So I don't think anybody on these boards is doing any redefining.

Besides, the OP did a good job of defining the premise. Although the signal-to-noise ratio in the discussion ain't great, I have been intrigued enough by that premise to stick around, panning for rare shiny bits.

^* Note that I am not accusing anyone here of doing that!

 

[Maxperson]

Just to be clear here, I wasn't establishing a numeric breaking point. I was going by the overall impression of the two examples. The first one essentially just says one thing. The second says many things the reader/listener must piece together. The first one isn't particularly like a novel description, the second one is. I prefer the first. Of course, how I describe something will always be dependent on the situation. But my manner of speaking when running a game is a lot more like option 1 than 2.

You do realize that option 1 prevents the players from having information that they should be aware of, right? The creature reeks of blood and carrion, which PCs would instantly know and should therefore be described to the players BEFORE the players start inquiring further about the creature in question.

 

[Maxperson]

The choice isn't between narration of literary quality or dull narration. Narration can be both, or it can be neither.

Literary quality is anything from, "I wouldn't wipe my rear with it." to Shakespeare.

The things you describe are content. How the orcs and the hill look and what small actions the orcs are performing are color, which is a type of content that informs the mood.

It is absolutely description. I am describing to the players what the kobolds(not orcs) are doing. That it is also content is irrelevant. It's still description.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think adding a small number of words to "In the room are 2 orcs" necessarily makes describing a situation in an RPG a literary endeavor in the way that was intended by the OP.

It adds to the quality of the narrative, so it applies.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You do realize that option 1 prevents the players from having information that they should be aware of, right? The creature reeks of blood and carrion, which PCs would instantly know and should therefore be described to the players BEFORE the players start inquiring further about the creature in question.

So you left out something you considered vital in option 1. If it is duper important I would mention it. But I would probably mention something like that before the players see it