Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

[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.

You are more concerned with the timing than I am. I am fine with a game where the players ask ‘does it have s discernible odor’ and the GM then mentioning the blood and carrion.

 

[Maxperson]

Ye olde OED lists "written work valued for superior or lasting artistic merit"

Almost. It also qualifies that as "especially" valued for superior or lasting artistic merit. That word "especially" allows for crappy literature as a part of the first definition.

 

[Maxperson]

You are more concerned with the timing than I am. I am fine with a game where the players ask ‘does it have s discernible odor’ and the GM then mentioning the blood and carrion.

Do you make them ask if the dungeon has walls, too? Obvious is obvious. They shouldn't have to waste time asking about whether there is dirt on the ground.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Do you make them ask if the dungeon has walls, too? Obvious is obvious. They shouldn't have to waste time asking about whether there is dirt on the ground.

Of course not. Look we have different approaches to play. No need to get snarky about it. I don’t particilsrky care if I nail the description first time out because I view it as a conversation. And I like the back and forth where players ask questions. Not your cup of tea. That is fine.

 

[uzirath]

Almost. It also qualifies that as "especially" valued for superior or lasting artistic merit. That word "especially" allows for crappy literature as a part of the first definition.

I looked up "literature" specifically, rather than "literary." (This was in response to [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s statement: "If it's words on paper, it's literature.") Even for "literary," though, the "esp." qualifier suggests that the term is commonly used in a more selective fashion. It can certainly be used more broadly and often is (as is the word "literature"). My only point is that it's hardly new or unusual for speakers to limit it to mean written works "of the kind valued for quality of form."

 

[Hussar]

perhaps a better question might be, "Should an RPG attempt to being a literary endevour". To which, I would answer a resounding yes. That I will try and fail doesn't bother me too much. But that we shouldn't try at all? That's just sad.

And, since we're not limited to D&D here, what about games like The Dying Earth where being "literary" is part and parcel to play. Not only is it expected, it's rewarded by the mechanics. Or LARPing, unless we're insisting that LARP'er's aren't "true" gamers.

 

[Bedrockgames]

perhaps a better question might be, "Should an RPG attempt to being a literary endevour". To which, I would answer a resounding yes. That I will try and fail doesn't bother me too much. But that we shouldn't try at all? That's just sad.

.

It is about what people want from play though. You want a more literary experience...that is fine. I simply don't want that. I don't find enjoyment in that kind of play.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I looked up "literature" specifically, rather than "literary." (This was in response to [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s statement: "If it's words on paper, it's literature.") Even for "literary," though, the "esp." qualifier suggests that the term is commonly used in a more selective fashion. It can certainly be used more broadly and often is (as is the word "literature"). My only point is that it's hardly new or unusual for speakers to limit it to mean written works "of the kind valued for quality of form."

And this is why the equivocation point I made is so important. It carries both meaning, but particularly means the more selective application. However, arguments are being made that rely on both meanings. And the broader meaning is the one first used to get literary in the door, then when it is convenient to what people want from play, the part of the definition about quality is used. It is a flawed argument for that reason. You are asked to accept that RPGs are literary and therefore should emulate literature, because RPGs use words on paper (or involve tropes from literature, or some similarly broad statement). But then moments later the quality issue is also invoked and we are told RPGs should also make use of strong literary devices, have high quality descriptions, etc. This is equivocation and it is one of the reasons definitional arguments can be such a problem when playstyle and approaches to play are being debated.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Almost. It also qualifies that as "especially" valued for superior or lasting artistic merit. That word "especially" allows for crappy literature as a part of the first definition.

The 'especially' means that is the more common use of the word. It does allow for crappy literature. But that means the word effectively has two meanings that form a venn diagram. And those two meanings are what keeps producing the equivocation in the argument about what RPGs should be doing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

That is a complete misreading of what I said.