Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

[Bedrockgames]

True. Facts make it so. I'm just asserting the facts.

.

No you are just making an assertion. Look, you are essentially saying everything is literary (when I take all your posts together). That is an absurdly broad useage, especially in a thread like this where what an RPG is being established to say how RPGs should be written and run. Again see my posts about equivocation.

 

[Maxperson]

No you are just making an assertion. Look, you are essentially saying everything is literary (when I take all your posts together). That is an absurdly broad useage, especially in a thread like this where what an RPG is being established to say how RPGs should be written and run. Again see my posts about equivocation.

Everything using words IS literary. You can then go into subcategories of literature to get more refined meaning and usage. It's disingenuous of you to keep deflecting the way you do, though. "It's overly broad!" "Your arguments are silly!" Altering what we say. Ignoring definitions. And more. You've been one major deflection since you got into this discussion.

Go ahead and think that your conversations aren't literary. Go ahead and think that conversational example 2 is somehow not conversational, but example 1 is. Go ahead and think you don't eat, breathe or sleep. It makes no matter to me what you believe.

Have a great day!

 

[Bedrockgames]

Everything using words IS literary. You can then go into subcategories of literature to get more refined meaning and usage. It's disingenuous of you to keep deflecting the way you do, though. "It's overly broad!" "Your arguments are silly!" Altering what we say. Ignoring definitions. And more. You've been one major deflection since you got into this discussion.

Go ahead and think that your conversations aren't literary. Go ahead and think that conversational example 2 is somehow not conversational, but example 1 is. Go ahead and think you don't eat, breathe or sleep. It makes no matter to me what you believe.

Have a great day!

Max I am sorry but this argument makes very little sense and has no real utility except to aid equivocation. And this goes beyond gaming: I just can’t buy a definition of literary that is anything involving written or spoken words. and I am assume gestured communication is also literary? When someone gives you the middle finger is that too a form of literature? It just stretches the term so that is covers everything in communication which makes it meaningless.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Ignoring definitions. And more. You've been one major deflection since you got into this discussion.

)

No, I am not ignoring definitions: you are. You are cherry picking parts of definitions to suit your argument, ignoring key points of definitions like ‘especially’ then making those key points relevant when it suits you. I am looking at the full definition, abiding by key nuances within definitions honestly and trying to make good faith arguments. This is why I keep mentioning equivocation. Please look it up because so much of this discussion suffers from it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Go ahead and think that your conversations aren't literary. Go ahead and think that conversational example 2 is somehow not conversational, but example 1 is. Go ahead and think you don't eat, breathe or sleep. It makes no matter to me what you believe.

A conversation can be literary: if it is a discussion about literature or if it is crafted by an author. A discussion on the street isn't literature. It just isn't. And I don't think anyone on this thread, if they are honest with themselves with really believe that.

As to 1 & 2, that is definitely a subjective judgement call. I personally find 2 to be much less conversational than 1, and I imagine the majority of people, if polled them randomly on the street, would say the same. The language is looser and more casual, it makes ready use of a pop reference that is very out of genre and setting, and it encourages a response that is part of the conversation (it is asking the players if they get the reference). The second one comes across as a description that is trying to evoke a mood and atmosphere. And the language resembles the kind of language you might find in a book when a monster is described. I don't know how else I can break this down for you, but I do believe my case is pretty strong. Again it is subjective, so another person could see those examples and reach a different conclusions. But do you not honestly see where I am coming from?

 

[Hriston]

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?

I actually addressed this in my response to your post about dungeon dressing. You may have missed it since I didn't quote you, so I'll quote it here in full:

Because color (dungeon dressing) is content that provides atmosphere when imagined by the participants at the table. The quality of form with which it’s expressed isn’t what’s important but rather whether the odors, noises, furnishings, and items found in an area suggest a torture chamber, a harem, or a wizard’s laboratory. In other words, it’s the actual content that matters, not the particular words that are used and the way they are said.

I had actually wanted to respond to your post about what you mean by performance because, to me, it doesn't really talk about what I would call performance at all. I didn't respond at the time because I thought it might be a digression, but I think now that it may be helpful to make this clarification, so I'm going to quote it here to make it clear what I'm responding to:

Well, let's see. I'd probably talk about growing up underground, reference my appearance by mentioning the beard and spend some time grooming it. I'd probably reference relations between my people and various other people as being different than everyone else's. My food choices would be different. References to my stature might go some ways. The fact that I don't like boats or horses might be a bit cliche, but, it does get the point across. Historical facts about my people in comparison to the rest of the party. Differences in approaches - the fact that I live about twice or three times as long as a human would give me a pretty different perspective on things. The fact that I see in the dark and have resistance to poisons would likely come up at some point.

And, look at that, not a single Scottish accent.

If you cannot portray the species of your character without resorting to bad accents, stick to playing humans.

Almost everything you mention here is content that you're introducing as a player. Details about the character's upbringing, appearance, culture, personal preferences, and racial features are part and parcel of the character. References to dwarven history inform the setting. This is all part of the content that the players imagine while playing the game. The only things you reference here that I would call performative is (perhaps) pantomiming the grooming of your beard at the table, and speaking in an accent, which you say you don't do.

 

[Hriston]

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.

You can add all kinds of words to your description of a situation without any regard for its literary quality as a piece of narration.

 

[Imaro]

You can add all kinds of words to your description of a situation without any regard for its literary quality as a piece of narration.

Who does this??

 

[Hriston]

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

Material of low literary quality is clearly not what the OP is talking about when asking whether RPGing is a literary endeavor.

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.

This isn't in dispute. My contention is that the act of describing content is not a literary endeavor in the sense used by the OP. For it to be a literary endeavor in that sense would require that the quality of form, i.e. word choice, phrase and sentence structure, use of meter, rhyme, and repetition, and other formal properties that set the language used apart from normal everyday language, is a major focus of the activity.

 

[Hriston]

Who does this??

I do it all the time in normal conversation. If I'm describing something, I use my ordinary speech patterns and vocabulary to elaborate until I feel I've arrived at an adequate description. I try not to overthink how I'm using the language. Are you always aware of the formal quality of your everyday speech?