Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

[Bedrockgames]

That makes even less sense Maxperson

 

[Maxperson]

This is probably getting into territory where people really start to disagree (whereas now we've just been arguing about the quality of GM description). I know I am likely an odd man out here but I don't think story is a necessary component of an RPG. Granted it is pretty clear many of us define story differently. But just going back to my point about equivocation: story has several meanings. It can mean, among other things 1) stuff that happened (which most people would agree RPGs always have, 2) fictional or dramatic narrative (which I think some RPGs have but not others), 3) A plot that follows a literary structure and tackles literary themes (which again some RPGs have but not others). The problem is when these conversations around 'how we should be gaming' and people advance a definition like 1, which you kind of have to accept, then equivocate to say RPGs should be good example of 2 and 3. Just to be clear here. I am not saying RPGs can't have story, or that they are not RPGs if they involve 2 or 3, I am just saying not every RPG has to have story, and some avoid stories in the sense of 2 and 3. This does matter because it is relevant when talking about what makes a good session or adventure of an RPG. Someone who is expecting 2 or 3 is going to be terribly frustrated in a free-form old school sandbox. Someone who doesn't want 2 or 3 is going to be frustrated by a game with more focus on story, character arcs, etc. I think people often dig their heels too much on these issues, and don't try things outside there comfort zone, which is a shame. But just speaking to the should and ought aspect of design and play, I think this is a key area of equivocation to be aware of in order to have a good faith discussion about these playstyle differences.

The only thing I disagree with is the bolded portion. The key factor in your post here is that those are all ways to have story. If you have a DM and players interacting, your number 1, what results will be a story. Story doesn't have to be a primary focus like it is in some games, but story is automatically a component of all RPGs.

Now that story is established in all RPGs, so long as the PCs are the main characters of that story, they are protagonists. They are protagonists regardless of how much narrative control they have. The DM could be railroading them down the track on a plot wagon and so long as the PCs are the main characters, they are still protagonists.

 

[Maxperson]

Second, I’m not saying it’s the language, although that’s part of it. I’m saying that the attempt to be more descriptive gets in the way in this case.

But only because it was taken to an extreme and the length got out of hand. Things taken to extremes are bad. In the case of your example, the extreme length was the problem, not the language itself.

I would agree. This is why I also think that placing the focus on the fictional situation is more important.

Do you tend to run more published material or your own?

Mostly my own. It takes far more work to convert something published into something I will run than to just create something.

Do you tend to read narration boxes and scripted material more or do you just narrate off the cuff?

Mostly I go off of the cuff. The only time I use boxes is if I use published material, and then I've highlighted portions of the box that are usable, and sometimes re-written portions. Altering text boxes is probably the one time where I will pick and choose words, and even then only when the writer has used a word I don't like.

 

[Maxperson]

That makes even less sense Maxperson

Then you aren't even trying and we can end this part of the discussion between us.

 

[Imaro]

But only because it was taken to an extreme and the length got out of hand. Things taken to extremes are bad. In the case of your example, the extreme length was the problem, not the language itself.

Yeah got to agree here... it's the same objection that was being made when non-literary was being equated to dull and boring.

 

[hawkeyefan]

But only because it was taken to an extreme and the length got out of hand. Things taken to extremes are bad. In the case of your example, the extreme length was the problem, not the language itself.

I didn’t think it was very extreme as a scene setting bit of narration. It takes about a minute and a half to deliver. Is that too long for an establishing bit of narration? Don’t the additional details provided in this longer narration more fully set the scene? It’s not just an inn, it’s a warm inn and a welcome respite, it’s crowded from people seeking shelter from the rain. It’s run by a friendly innkeeper who notices things and whose serving maid, Tansy, is likely his daughter. There’s the smell of the stew, and the entrance of an enigmatic figure.

Doesn’t all of this detail relate to your initial point? Presentation and interesting description being as important as the content?

In the second bit, the description is pretty bare bones. It’s an inn, it’s crowded due to heavy rain. In walks a man with an eyepatch.

The second has much less description. Is it dull? Maybe not quite the right word. Spare, for sure. But there’s that one really key bit about the eyepatch (and nothing else about him beyond that) that likely would trigger a response from the player.

I’d likely use something like the first approach if I wanted to simply set a scene, and then maybe move toward some kind of action or decision.

The second would be if I wanted to get right to the decision point. Which method I’d use would depend on what I wanted to get out of the session, based on my and the players’ desires.

Mostly my own. It takes far more work to convert something published into something I will run than to just create something.

Mostly I go off of the cuff. The only time I use boxes is if I use published material, and then I've highlighted portions of the box that are usable, and sometimes re-written portions. Altering text boxes is probably the one time where I will pick and choose words, and even then only when the writer has used a word I don't like.

Based on this and other recent comments, it sounds to me like you’re much more in agreement with the OP than it seemed. You seem unconcerned with making the narration as high quality as possible, and that you’re more concerned with conveying the necessary details.

 

[Bedrockgames]

No. It's subtle, though, so I'll explain it. What I just said was that if you don't care at all about literary quality of narration, you are okay with everything being dull, not that it will be dull. If you don't care, then dull narration doesn't bother you. If dull narration DOES bother you, you care about the quality. I wasn't saying literary narration was all or nothing, which would be a False Dichotomy.

Why does it follow that if you don't care about literary quality in GM narrative, you also don't care if it is dull. Unless non-literary means dull this doesn't make sense (and non-literary can be dull or exciting just as literary can be dull or exciting). Also you are playing games with the word quality here. You are using it particularly broadly so that any improvement at all to a description (even for purely conversation purposes) can be slipped into the 'literary quality' category.

Also I think much more important to whether a description is dull is what is going on, rather than the veneer of words used to describe it. You can say 'you slide open the panel and see an orc face through the wall', or you can say 'you slide the panel revealing a green-hued face with beastly eyes and teeth that stares at you through the wall'. What is interesting and not dull here, to me, is that there is face of a monster looking back at me through the wall. If I were reading a book, I'd probably favor something like number 2 (though it depends on the book). In a game, I would be okay with either, but I wouldn't be more impressed with number 2 (and I'd find it slightly artificial). And number 2 wouldn't get me more into what is going on.

 

[Maxperson]

I didn’t think it was very extreme as a scene setting bit of narration. It takes about a minute and a half to deliver. Is that too long for an establishing bit of narration? Don’t the additional details provided in this longer narration more fully set the scene? It’s not just an inn, it’s a warm inn and a welcome respite, it’s crowded from people seeking shelter from the rain. It’s run by a friendly innkeeper who notices things and whose serving maid, Tansy, is likely his daughter. There’s the smell of the stew, and the entrance of an enigmatic figure.

It takes about a minute and a half to deliver, and the players are going to forget paragraph one by the time you finish two or hit three. If the players are forgetting what you are describing, it's way too long.

Doesn’t all of this detail relate to your initial point? Presentation and interesting description being as important as the content?

Too much presentation comes at the expense of content. You are describing lots of content there, and then the players are forgetting things before you reach the end of the super long narration.

In the second bit, the description is pretty bare bones. It’s an inn, it’s crowded due to heavy rain. In walks a man with an eyepatch.

And this is too light for my tastes. It's probably just fine for @Bedrockgames, though.

I’d likely use something like the first approach if I wanted to simply set a scene, and then maybe move toward some kind of action or decision.

My descriptions would probably be one of those paragraphs in length. Two maximum if I was describing something grand or immense.

The second would be if I wanted to get right to the decision point. Which method I’d use would depend on what I wanted to get out of the session, based on my and the players’ desires.

See, for me, one of your paragraphs is getting right to the decision point.

Based on this and other recent comments, it sounds to me like you’re much more in agreement with the OP than it seemed. You seem unconcerned with making the narration as high quality as possible, and that you’re more concerned with conveying the necessary details.

Except that I do want to provide interesting narration. I'm somewhere in the middle of the OP and your example.

 

[Maxperson]

Why does it follow that if you don't care about literary quality in GM narrative, you also don't care if it is dull. Unless non-literary means dull this doesn't make sense (and non-literary can be dull or exciting just as literary can be dull or exciting). Also you are playing games with the word quality here. You are using it particularly broadly so that any improvement at all to a description (even for purely conversation purposes) can be slipped into the 'literary quality' category.

I'm playing no games at all. If you improve the quality of the description, the literary quality is improving. It's greater than some descriptions, and less than others.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm playing no games at all. If you improve the quality of the description, the literary quality is improving. It's greater than some descriptions, and less than others.

There is definitely slight of hand going on here. And I am not 100% sure where it resides. You are asserting that reducing the dullness, improves quality and therefore improves the literary quality, therefore GMing relies on higher literary quality if you don't want dullness. Something to that effect. The problem is Quality (B) and Literary Quality (C) are not the same thing. This feels like it is operating in the same realm as your argument that all conversations are literary (because literature can contain conversations). Just because literary efforts can be concerned with quality, that doesn't make any improvement of quality literary. It is getting to a pretty dizzying point, but I think there are serious flaws in these arguments.

Either way, rhetoric aside. I don't need to be concerned about narrative techniques, taking inspiration from boxed text or speaking in a way that is prose-style description to not be boring. If I slap you in the face during a conversation, that isn't boring, but it also isn't particularly literary (nor does it add to the literary quality of our discussion).