Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

[Imaro]

This certainly shows you don't watch much basketball. Theatrics are definitely there. It's part of the dunks, the juking, the fade aways, the finishes, and playstyles of many players. Legendary basketball player Julius Erving (Dr. J.) even got his start in a league dedicated to the theatrics of basketball: the Harlem Globetrotters.

The analogy was with the game of basketball, not with how it's played in specific arenas...NBA & Globetrotter exhibitions (which aren't even an example of basketball being played). Unless we are now only talking about RPG's played for presentation to an audience...

 

[Aldarc]

The analogy was with the game of basketball, not with how it's played in specific arenas...NBA & Globetrotter exhibitions (which aren't even an example of basketball being played). Unless we are now only talking about RPG's played for presentation to an audience...

I know, and what I said applies to that.

 

[Imaro]

I know, and what I said applies to that.

EDIT: Not even worth it.

 

[Aldarc]

Yep and that's why no meaningful discussion is taking place between the two main sides of this argument. You see it as totally superfluous to the game while I and others see it as an integral part of the whole... of course if every time we bring up an example it gets put in the..that's not what we are talking about bin... but when a definite line is asked for it's brushed off as not really required (because of course the people who see it as superfluous all agree on where the line is...the superfluous stuff of course!!.... it's easy to see how such disparate views arise and understanding is minimal.

Not so much superfluous as much as less fundamental to the basics. You will naturally develop a style, but the basics of ball-handling, shooting, and play-making are important fundamentals of the game that propel it forward. Many great players of the game typically have both, but we generally expect one over the other. Those who are style without substance are typically overrated players with nothing to show, while those who are substance over style are more likely to have the stats and accolades than the other way around.

 

[Bedrockgames]

That may make it seem like content matters more than presentation, but I don't think that it does. Even with the filter, the presentation still matters just as much as the content. I'm just adjusting the presentation to match the charisma. Both presentation and content matter equally in my opinion.

I do the same thing actually. But this reasoning doesn't make much sense to me. The presentation is the same, you are just interpreting the presentation differently based on a mechanic. However I think we are getting pretty far afield of the crux of the debate. It really isn't about whether one is more important than the other. It is more about what kind of delivery/presentation/description people want. Some of us want a style that is natural, doesn't affect the manner or techniques of novel writing, some of us do want a more literary style of description. We've debated the meanings of these various terms. But I think if we make an attempt to understand the key difference arising, it centers around what kind of descriptions do you want from the GM and do you want them to be more or less literary (i.e. should they be evocative, sound like novel prose, employ literary techniques, etc or should they be more conversational and plain spoken).

 

[Imaro]

I do the same thing actually. But this reasoning doesn't make much sense to me. The presentation is the same, you are just interpreting the presentation differently based on a mechanic. However I think we are getting pretty far afield of the crux of the debate. It really isn't about whether one is more important than the other. It is more about what kind of delivery/presentation/description people want. Some of us want a style that is natural, doesn't affect the manner or techniques of novel writing, some of us do want a more literary style of description. We've debated the meanings of these various terms. But I think if we make an attempt to understand the key difference arising, it centers around what kind of descriptions do you want from the GM and do you want them to be more or less literary (i.e. should they be evocative, sound like novel prose, employ literary techniques, etc or should they be more conversational and plain spoken).

@Aldarc 's post above yours is definitely about which is more important... And contrary to what you've been saying it's been framed like that by quite a few posters in this thread.

EDIT: Emphasis mine... IMO this would have been a much more interesting discussion topic

 

[Bedrockgames]

@Aldarc 's post above yours is definitely about which is more important... And contrary to what you've been saying it's been framed like that by quite a few posters in this thread.

EDIT: Emphasis mine... IMO this would have been a much more interesting discussion topic

Yes, we've been getting sucked into that debate on the thread. We've also been sucked into debates over the meaning of words. I am not denying that. But I think the central conflict is fundamentally over what kinds of descriptions we enjoy from the Gamemaster, and was more at the heart of the conversation. At the very least I think it is a more productive conversation to have. I've entertained some of the definitional arguments and some of the broad principle arguments, but I don't really think there is much to be gained by having them.

 

[Aldarc]

@Aldarc 's post above yours is definitely about which is more important... And contrary to what you've been saying it's been framed like that by quite a few posters in this thread.

EDIT: Emphasis mine... IMO this would have been a much more interesting discussion topic

That's probably because the entire basketball analogy was originally framed in terms of greater importance.

 

[Imaro]

I do the same thing actually. But this reasoning doesn't make much sense to me. The presentation is the same, you are just interpreting the presentation differently based on a mechanic. However I think we are getting pretty far afield of the crux of the debate. It really isn't about whether one is more important than the other. It is more about what kind of delivery/presentation/description people want. Some of us want a style that is natural, doesn't affect the manner or techniques of novel writing, some of us do want a more literary style of description. We've debated the meanings of these various terms. But I think if we make an attempt to understand the key difference arising, it centers around what kind of descriptions do you want from the GM and do you want them to be more or less literary (i.e. should they be evocative, sound like novel prose, employ literary techniques, etc or should they be more conversational and plain spoken).

Well if you start a thread around that premise I'd be more than happy to discuss since I think there's too much baggage in this thread to have any type of meaningful discussion and alot of posters have already bailed on it.

 

[Imaro]

That's probably because the entire basketball analogy was originally framed in terms of greater importance.

No it wasn't... I think you missed the point.