D&D General Genres and Campaign Settings, and why D&D is not a Work of Literature

[Mort]

Interesting post.

I think it's deliberately difficult to pin down most campaign settings into a genre - because they actively try to be many at once.

Gygax was trying to appeal to a wide group - he wanted many different elements in there. Heck, one of his players loved westerns (Boothill) so he let him play a cowboy and threw in some Western into Greyhawk.

Greenwood was the same way. He put in many elements to the setting because he was trying to appeal to a wide base.

Sure some setting are more focused, but even there - it all depends on 1. how the DM presents things and 2. How the players choose to approach and play the game.

That's one HUGE difference. A moviegoer can't influence a movie by how they view it, a reader can't influence a book by how they read it. But a group can absolutely define a game by how they play it.

And in a campaign - it can change from session to session. One session is a rousing adventure story, next session is suddenly a horror story. Sure, changing too much too often can give players narrative whiplash - but the point is world can be different things to different people and groups.

I think that's one reason it has been so hard to pin down the Greyhawk in that prior thread. It was different things to different people. Especially since its heyday was prior to the internet homogenizing some of the play experience.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

While I think discussion of genre can be helpful, the fuzziness of the definitions of genres (and especially sub-genres) and the lack of applicability in certain situations with regard to TTRPGs can lead to more heat and less light.

I feel like you're as guilty as anyone else here, Snarf, given this thread.

You just took hundreds and hundreds of words to say:

"D&D settings are influenced by genres rather than being of those genres".

I don't think anyone is asserting Eberron "is" Pulp except as a shorthand, for example. It's a common shorthand, but a shorthand.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I feel like you're as guilty as anyone else here, Snarf, given this thread.

You just took hundreds and hundreds of words to say:

"D&D settings are influenced by genres rather than being of those genres".

I don't think anyone is asserting Eberron "is" Pulp except as a shorthand, for example. It's a common shorthand, but a shorthand.

Yeah this is very much true... this essay definitely feels like a response to criticism of the "Greyhawk is S&S" or "Greyhawk is Low Fantasy."

Obviously a campaign setting does not dictate play; despite a lot of people saying Greyhawk is more gritty and hard-boiled than Forgotten Realms (and I largely agree) you can play an extremely light and comedic Greyhawk, using some pretty funhouse dungeons like White Plume Mountain.

Still, when your picking a campaign setting, usually you want it to match the tone of your game. Sometimes people enjoy clashing tones, but most of the time people want consistency. So assigning campaign settings a genre is completely fine, as long as you recognize the PCs may completely screw with it (like everything else!)

 

[Ancalagon]

I, for one, do not like the title of this thread, which is not what the body of the OP is about.

I have seen sentences in RPG material that definitely challenge the concept of ttrpgs not being work of literature.

"At some point in your past you decided you didn’t need it anymore"

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I, for one, do not like the title of this thread, which is not what the body of the OP is about.

I have seen sentences in RPG material that definitely challenge the concept of ttrpgs not being work of literature.

D&D (the playing thereof) is not a work of literature. If you think that is inaccurate, that is fine! But as you correctly point out, that’s not really the gist of the post, so you should probably expound on that excellent thesis in a lengthy thread of your own ...

about Greyhawk.

 

[Ancalagon]

D&D (the playing thereof) is not a work of literature. If you think that is inaccurate, that is fine! But as you correctly point out, that’s not really the gist of the post, so you should probably expound on that excellent thesis in a lengthy thread of your own ...

about Greyhawk.

ha!

But seriously speaking. D&D - the rules, the adventures - are written. Clear, evocative and concise writing very important. There are some ruleset I gave up on exploring because... the writing was bad. It takes skill to do this well.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

D&D (the playing thereof) is not a work of literature.

Playing D&D is an exercise in collective storytelling, and is therefore literature.

Worldbuilding, adventure and character creation are also literary tasks.

Genre labels can be unhelpful and misleading to the understanding literature of any type, irrespective of if it is a campaign setting or a novel.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But seriously speaking. D&D - the rules, the adventures - are written. Clear, evocative and concise writing very important. There are some ruleset I gave up on exploring because... the writing was bad. It takes skill to do this well.

Well, that is why I normally try to use more the more general term 'text' than literature, because the term 'literature' too often carries the associated baggage of the normative value of whether something is "good" (sure, that comic book is fun, but it's not ... puts monocle firmly in place and crinkles nose LITERARY).

And then there is the separate issue of how technical writing can be good, or bad, and how technical writing is different than fiction writing- with different goals and different markers as to what can be considered 'good'.* Which would bring up the interrelated issues, given that D&D, and other TTRPGs, necessarily mix what we call "crunch" and "lore" about the best ways to present and mix the two.

But that would be the subject for a completely different, exceptionally long post! Probably about Greyhawk.


*Dude, I love that ruleset! It reminds me of Pale Fire, what with the unreliable narrator. I don't even know what die to roll, or even if the game uses dice!

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Well, that is why I normally try to use more the more general term 'text' than literature, because the term 'literature' too often carries the associated baggage of the normative value of whether something is "good" (sure, that comic book is fun, but it's not ... puts monocle firmly in place and crinkles nose LITERARY).

And then there is the separate issue of how technical writing can be good, or bad, and how technical writing is different than fiction writing- with different goals and different markers as to what can be considered 'good'.* Which would bring up the interrelated issues, given that D&D, and other TTRPGs, necessarily mix what we call "crunch" and "lore" about the best ways to present and mix the two.

But that would be the subject for a completely different, exceptionally long post! Probably about Greyhawk.


*Dude, I love that ruleset! It reminds me of Pale Fire, what with the unreliable narrator. I don't even know what die to roll, or even if the game uses dice!

Definition of literature is "written works, especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit."

Playing D&D obviously isn't a work of literature.... but it is often a work of storytelling, which I think is directly tied to your points about genre.

I think it's hard to argue that something like Critical Role isn't a body of fiction, especially when it is being adapted right now to television (as is the Adventure Zone). Yes their not literary fiction, but I'd argue the difference in genre from a novel to a book is little more than stylistic changes that are necessary due to the change in written vs. visual media.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Definition of literature is "written works, especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit."

Other definitions exist. More modern dictionaries would remove the "artistic merit" requirement since it is entirely subjective.

Note that screenwriting is also literature.