Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

[Bedrockgames]

While I can see the point of RPGing =/= literary when the definition of literary=high art, fair enough, the notion that you, as a DM do not need to be concerned with narrative techniques is flat out false.

But I am just talking to my players and I run games without trying to advance some kind of plot of story on the party. I want to be surprised by the outcomes as much as my players. And I don't want my communication style to feel like words on a page. Obviously, I am not sitting there with a frown coldly issuing details. I am engaged in a conversation. I am just not thinking in the terms you appear to be thinking while I do so. Again, I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. I don't see my game as high literature, but I also don't see it as emulating anything to do with novels either. It is a totally different medium.

EDIT: I want to give some specific examples here so it is more apparent what is going on in my game and move away from the generalizations and abstract principles we are fighting over. I just want to add for clarification here since emulating novels was mentioned. There are elements of other media that get borrowed of course. All of my campaigns presently are wuxia or horror. I like drawing on genre. But I just don't worry about the structures or techniques of the mediums involved. You can totally do that. And it is fine. It just isn't how I like emulating genre. I prefer to bake the physics of genre into the GM tools and mechanics, and I prefer to still view this as a game where the outcomes are not determined and where I can't really chart out plots in advance. So for example I have a tool I call the Grudge Table. Anytime players kill someone, cause trouble or violate the principles of the martial world in a way that causes someone to take exception, I add that person or their sect to the Grudge Encounter table (which is rolled on periodically). This ensures a genre element (the cycle of revenge and feuding clans of the martial world) recurs in the campaign. But I don't use it in a literary way. I will also occasionally throw in dramatically appropriate developments. But I am very careful when I do this because I have big concerns about the GM railroading or trying to force a story on the party. My way of handling that is to treat this aspect of the game as part of the setting cosmology (for example if players bump into an NPC at an oddly dramatically appropriate time, I treat that as a fated relationship---so you can expect in the future that character will come up). At the end of the day, what it is about for me is understanding this is a different medium than novels, and that things which are assumed to be necessarily tools or techniques in that medium, won't necessarily work in this one. You can still have the excitement you find in novels. You can still have lots of the things that go on. I just think it works better if they happen in a way that fits the medium. One thing I want to preserve is the fact that this is a game. And the biggest thing that needs respecting is the ability of players to try things and get results you were not planning or expecting. I want my players to feel like the scenario is unfolding fairly and they actions are adjudicated fairly. And I don't want to narrate story to them as much as facilitate the game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yup. And an RPG without performance or any sort of eye towards literary notions like pacing, character development, tone, etc, is a board game.

No it isn't because in an RPG the players are identifying with their character. In Risk you have to move pieces on the board and you can't go beyond the premise. RPGs are as if you allowed the players to play single individuals in the army and explore the world or go on adventures at the ground level. That doesn't necessitate character development, pacing, tone, etc. It can include those things. But it doesn't have to have them. Particularly if you are using them in the literary sense.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But these are not distinctly literary notions. Pacing, character development, and tone, etc. all exist within film media, for example, but these are not regarded as "literary." This is a categorical issue.

There is also this. Personally I find the hardest of these to force into an RPG is character development. At least the way it would be handled in a novel or book. Similar with pacing. In novels and books the director or writer has total control over what characters do and how quickly they do it. They can plan character arcs and develop their characters in a way that gives cohesion to the story. In an RPG I can't control if a player wants to fullfill some kind of character arc. By the same token, I can't control if my NPCs survive or succeed in all their plans, because the X factor of player characters. There are systems that provide tools for this. But many don't have those kinds of tools. I do run my NPCs as if they are player characters, so if a player kills an NPCs daughter, it is likely he will come after them for revenge or something. I am just not thinking in literary terms when it comes to that stuff, and definitely try to avoid having future outcomes in my head about these things (with NPCs I just try to keep in mind what they want and what they are trying to do). But I am not going to plan out some kind of redemption story with an NPC.

Tone is also very difficult to control as a GM. And I think a lot of western media is obsessed with keeping a single tone (which I think is impacting this discussion). Not all media is single tone focused like that (watch some 80s or 90s Hong Kong films and you'll find the tone rapidly shifts and is all over the map---but the experience overall is very rewarding). In an RPG I can't force my players to abide by the tone of Schindler's List for a super serious campaign, or force them to be in a state of dread for a horror campaign (or force them to be funny for a humorous campaign). I can control the content though. And through the content I can emulate the physics and elements of these genres). I think there is nothing wrong with speaking in a style that fits the genre as well, but that is just not my way of doing things. I find it feels too forced and doesn't fit my natural personality.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It adds interest to an interesting situation; and (most important) can make what might otherwise be a boring situation be or become interesting.

Simple as that.

But it can also come off as artificial, like you are trying to sound like book or movie narrator. Again, I am not saying people shouldn't do this nor am I saying it isn't something that people try to do in RPGs. I am just saying, everyone has a different style. I think if something doesn't fit your personality you shouldn't force it. And giving these kinds of descriptions isn't a requirement of helping to establish an image in peoples' minds (not everyone reacts the same way to this stuff either).

Look, I have a group of four very different players in one of my games. One is very skilled at acting out his character in the manner of an actor. And it fits his personality because he is also very charming and charismatic. So we enjoy watching him perform his character in this way. That is great, and I like it but I don't know that I'd want all four of the players doing that at the table. The other players each have their own personality. One of them is very good at figuring out the internal workings of his character and his dialogue is great (as are his out of character comments and observations about what is going on in the campaign). But he isn't performative the way the first player is. My other two players are drier but one of them very enthusiastic. One approaches things very seriously, knows how to act because he has done lots of improv and theater, but chooses to play the game in a more reserved manner (because he doesn't see RPGing and acting as the same thing). The other player embraces the things that happen in the game in a way that really adds to play, he also gets very invested in his character's goals. This is a player whose character has lost multiple limbs and rolls with it, helping that sort of detail add to his character's goals and personality. Everyone feels quite engaged, and they engage in the game in a way that fits who they are as people. Ultimately the reason the game works is we all get along as people. I don't have a list of things I am looking for in terms of performance from players. And while performance may arise, I don't think it is a requirement, nor do I think it is always a good thing for its own sake. I like a down to earth, balanced group where people can be themselves (and that extends to the GM). I am not interested in controlling tone, pacing, or character development. I am not interested in speaking in a hushed whisper and carefully selecting my adjectives. Doesn't mean my descriptions suck, they are just more conversational than prose or literary inspired.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The first description is wonderfully evocative and engaging except that it's missing one very obvious element: if the PCs can see that his gaze is sweeping the room they should also be able to see that said gaze is being done with just one eye; thus that little detail should be included in the narration, hm?

And if the eyepatch was intentionally left out of the first description as a trap then I call shenanigans.

Description one is excessive and, I think, not what Hussar or Maxperson are pushing for (it is way too long). But it is an example of the downside of a literary focus because I have had GMs attempt this kind of narration and I view it as a product of thinking in terms of boxed text or novel prose. I wouldn't object to a bit of this. Where it goes off the rails for me is giving me every single detail. But the worst part is it assumes PC actions in the inn. It just glosses over so many places where a player character might attempt an action or try to engage someone in conversation. It assumes they hang their cloaks up on their way in for example. And it walks the players through the game as if they are on a rail in a story (and they can't get off that rail until the GM is done describing the inn).

 

[Umbran]

But I am just talking to my players and I run games without trying to advance some kind of plot of story on the party. I want to be surprised by the outcomes as much as my players. And I don't want my communication style to feel like words on a page.

Not all things that fall into "narrative techniques" (as I'd define them, at least) are about communication style. It isn't all word choice and funny voices.

As an example, if your players get stuck, and start getting frustrated or bored, do you let them sit there, or do you as a GM do something to get some action or decision making to happen? Giving some nudge to get *something* to happen isn't necessarily driving them to a specific, pre-planned narrative (wandering monsters, anyone?), but it is applying some control to the pace of the session.

And, you know, one of the aspects we think about with literature is... pacing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Not all things that fall into "narrative techniques" (as I'd define them, at least) are about communication style. It isn't all word choice and funny voices.

I understand that, but the thread has mainly been focused on narrative and literary style descriptions by the GM. I think part of the reason the conversation is so hard to have is because, as you point out, it can be about other things. I've just been trying to stay focused on the description since that is what seems to be the subject.

As an example, if your players get stuck, and start getting frustrated or bored, do you let them sit there, or do you as a GM do something to get some action or decision making to happen? Giving some nudge to get *something* to happen isn't necessarily driving them to a specific, pre-planned narrative (wandering monsters, anyone?), but it is applying some control to the pace of the session.

I think my approach to a campaign is a bit different here. There isn't the sense in my campaigns that the players have to get to the end of an adventure. They can lose an adventure by not making progress. Things still happen of course. And many of those things are interesting and even dramatic. But I don't think it makes them literary if you are just trying to solve the problem of the game grinding to a halt. I mean, that is a problem that can arise in the medium of roleplaying games. You can use literary techniques to get around it, but you can also use techniques designed for the medium itself (like wandering monsters). You use these yourself as an example. I don't see wandering monster tables as a literary technique. I certainly wouldn't want books written using encounter tables.

And, you know, one of the aspects we think about with literature is... pacing.

Like another poster pointed out, this is not unique to literature and it isn't something I actively worry about controlling. When people talk about pacing, they don't just mean "keep the game from grinding to a halt". That is an extreme situation. They also mean controlling the flow of encounters, controlling the rate at which the players make it through the adventure, providing a steady course of entertainment in the right proportions over the evening. A disastrous issue like the game grinding to a halt, would obviously be a concern, but that is clearly an edge case and being worried with that a lone isn't sufficient to say a GM is particularly worried about pacing. These other elements I just listed, I genuinely don't care about. If the players figure out they can win the adventure by shooting the messenger who delivers the hook in the first ten seconds, then I give them that victory. i don't worry about how it impacts pacing of the adventure or the session. If the adventure ends without a climactic fight, that is fine with me. I treat each session as a game, where I don't know what is going to happen, when or how. And I make a point of not considering literary things that would me to interfere with that. Now that doesn't mean you can't find examples of it.

I think the danger here when we talk about literary techniques is failing to see this is a different medium with different needs. I hate to sound like a broken record on this subject but so often I see people start with this idea that there is a similarity between RPGs and novels, and therefore a good RPG session/system/adventure should play out like a novel or feature the essential things that a novel has. And you see that in this discussion where it is simply assumed by some posters that a GM should sound like an author writing book in their descriptions. I am not saying RPGs can't have these things. But clearly there are posters in this thread who feel there are other ways to think about RPGs and that thinking about RPGs in the ways we talk about is much more fitting for what we are after. If you want literary techniques in your game Umbran, I am fine with it. And if you have a cool way of bringing literary techniques into the realm of RPGs, I am even more interested in what you have to say than if you are just porting them in whole. But we've all come about this from different paths. I developed my style of GMing largely asa result of my extreme dissatisfaction with what was prevalent at the height of the d20 boom and based on the lessons I learned as a GM during the height of GM as storyteller in the 90s. I learned that a lot of the things I didn't like in gaming, not all, but a lot, were a product of forcing aspects of other mediums into RPGs.

 

[Aldarc]

And, you know, one of the aspects we think about with literature is... pacing.

We also think about pacing when cooking, but I would not call TTRPGS cooking either.

At times the argumentation in this conversation feels like people are insisting that because cakes are made using flour and eggs that making pasta ergo is baking a cake.

 

[Maxperson]

But these are not distinctly literary notions. Pacing, character development, and tone, etc. all exist within film media, for example, but these are not regarded as "literary." This is a categorical issue.

But they ARE literary notions, because they exist in written works. Just because they do not exist ONLY in written works does mean that they are not literary techniques. Also, many do consider film to be literary since film is a representation of written media(the script).

 

[Maxperson]

Description one is excessive and, I think, not what Hussar or Maxperson are pushing for (it is way too long).

I can't speak for [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], but it's certainly not what I'm pushing for.

But it is an example of the downside of a literary focus because I have had GMs attempt this kind of narration and I view it as a product of thinking in terms of boxed text or novel prose.

I don't accept this "downside" argument as a reason not to do or like something. I mean, cheating is a downside of playing a game. Just because there are some DMs out there who will write excessive descriptions does not make literary descriptions bad, just like there being some players out there who cheat does not make playing games bad. These are examples of bad DMs and bad players, not bad writing styles or bad games.

I wouldn't object to a bit of this.

A bit is all that's really needed.

Where it goes off the rails for me is giving me every single detail. But the worst part is it assumes PC actions in the inn. It just glosses over so many places where a player character might attempt an action or try to engage someone in conversation. It assumes they hang their cloaks up on their way in for example. And it walks the players through the game as if they are on a rail in a story (and they can't get off that rail until the GM is done describing the inn).

When I describe a room or situation, I'm giving the players the details that are immediately visible or audible to their PCs. If I were to describe a room, I would mention the desk in the middle of it, but not the small objects on top of it, unless it was something like a glowing ring. If the room is poorly lit, I will mention that, because it's relevant and immediately discernible. If there's a large hole in the back wall, I will mention it, but not large spider since it's at the back of a poorly lit room inside an even darker hole. And so on.