Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

[pemerton]

One of my biggest pet peeves is when one player turns to another at the table and says, "What race is your character again? Were you human or elf?" Because, to me, that just screams that the performance of that player is so flat and uninteresting that the fact that this character isn't even human isn't readily apparent at the table.

If a character's race or background or motivations or capacities figure so little in the action of play, then to me the problem at that table is not one of an absence of performance!

Conversely, if the only way I would know a player was playing a dwarf was because of his/her Scottish accent (or whatever) but it doesn't make any difference to what that character actually does in play, then why do I care whether or not that character is a dwarf?

 

[pemerton]

pemerton has pretty strongly argued that presentation is not very important and that content is all that really matters. That the scenario regardless of how that scenario is communicated to the players is the most important thing at the table.

I have used the words "literary" and "performance" in what I hope are reasonably clear senses. Theatre (typically) involves both. Salon repartee with Oscar Wilde or Dorothy Parker involves both. Conversation with friends typically invovles neither.

I've also said - repeatedly, although [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] may not have read those posts - that everything else being equal a mellifluous GM can be a good thing. But obviously much of the time everything is not equal. For example, pre-scripting which is often a precondition of literary quality in word-choice and a precondition for rehearsal of presentation, is at odds with the back-and-forth, the invitation-and-response, that I think is at the heart of RPGing.

To frame invitation-and-response as scenario is harmless enough provided not too much weight is put on the latter. But obviously if, by scenario, one is talking about something pre-scripted and rehearsed, then that's not what I'm talking about.

If a scenario doesn't speak to the players and engage their interest, and generate an emotional response in them, then my advice to the GM would always be work on your stuff. I would not be suggesting choose a different soundtrack.

I’d argue that presentation is equally important and you prove my point. A dm who presents information one way would make you enjoy the game less than if he or she presented a different way. Even though they are presenting exactly the same information.

Seems to me that presentation or performance is extremely important. Equally as important as content since content alone isn’t enough for you to enjoy the game.

This is an obvious non-sequitur. Some people find dealing with stutterers very frustrating. Others don't mind.

Some are more tolerant than others of a variety of approaches to personal comportment. To swearing. Etc.

But none of these (rather banal) facts about who one enjoys, or doesn't enjoy, talking to and spending time with show that RPGing is a literary endeavour. Or that performance, in the sense in which theatre and recitation involve performance but conversation typically doesn't, are central to the activity.

 

[Guest 85555]

Umm nope?

I pretty clearly defined performance as being anything that is not content. Others amended that to be presentation, which, in hindsight is probably a better way of saying things.
[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has pretty strongly argued that presentation is not very important and that content is all that really matters. That the scenario regardless of how that scenario is communicated to the players is the most important thing at the table.

I’d argue that presentation is equally important and you prove my point. A dm who presents information one way would make you enjoy the game less than if he or she presented a different way. Even though they are presenting exactly the same information.

Seems to me that presentation or performance is extremely important. Equally as important as content since content alone isn’t enough for you to enjoy the game.

Again, I wasn't objecting to presentation mattering. I was objecting to presentation being framed as your preferred playstyle. And I was questioning the importance of dividing gaming into content and presentation. I could not see the utility of this distinction.

 

[Guest 85555]

Not only can I, I will!

If you guys wonder why there is only five of you in these conversations, this right here is exhibit A.

 

[Guest 85555]

Seems to me that presentation or performance is extremely important. Equally as important as content since content alone isn’t enough for you to enjoy the game.

If you are defining presentation as anything that isn't content, well, that is so broad, anything in the category has to be important (but it is also pretty useless to have such a broad category). But honestly I feel like you are paying lip service to this, while using the distinction to advance a clear playstyle argument (and it is pretty obvious Pemerton is picking up on the same thing). Neither of us have particularly objected to presentation as a thing that matters. We've objected to the way you've focused on the performative aspects of it. Underlying this whole discussion is a divide over whether the players and GM are there performing for one another or if they are there interacting and conversing with one another. I do not see the game as a performance. This is the part of what has been said on this thread that I object to. The only other thing I really weighed in on was the OP (where I essentially said I agreed with what Pemerton seemed to be saying).

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Hussar]

If a character's race or background or motivations or capacities figure so little in the action of play, then to me the problem at that table is not one of an absence of performance!

Conversely, if the only way I would know a player was playing a dwarf was because of his/her Scottish accent (or whatever) but it doesn't make any difference to what that character actually does in play, then why do I care whether or not that character is a dwarf?

Ah. We’re back to performance = funny voices and everything else is apparently content.

Well if that’s the definition you’re insisting on working from then sure you’re 100% right.

 

[Hussar]

I reject the notion that rpgs are closer to conversations than performances. They just aren’t. The purpose of a conversation is to convey information. The purpose of performance is to elicit emotional response.

There’s so much more to an rpg than just the transference of information. I would hope that players always have in mind that they are there to help the table have a good time, not just themselves.

I cannot reconcile the idea that literary or performance are so much less important than the information being conveyed.

Unless of course you’re under the misconception that performance or literary is so limited in definition.

 

[Hussar]

Again, I wasn't objecting to presentation mattering. I was objecting to presentation being framed as your preferred playstyle. And I was questioning the importance of dividing gaming into content and presentation. I could not see the utility of this distinction.

See, I think we're talking past each other. Presentation is simply the manner in which you convey information from the DM to the players (or vice versa). Presentation can be full on thespianism or bare bones minimalism, but, in any case, it's still presentation. You and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], for some reason seem to be stuck on this idea that presentation needs to be speaking in funny voices. It's not. Presentation is the how, content is the what.

Now, your preferred presentation style and my preferred presentation style might be different, sure, but, we both still HAVE a presentation style. The notion that you can convey content without any presentation style at all or that how you convey that information doesn't matter is proven false by your own statement that presenting one way will cause you to hate the game while presenting the exact same information another way will cause you to like the game.

So, in the end, the content isn't the only reason you enjoy the game. The presentation matters just as much.

Which is why we're making the distinction. The content might be 5 orcs in a 20x20 room that attack on sight. The presentation of that encounter can vary greatly from bare bones to florid, purple prose, full on thespianism. How you choose to present that information will be, in part, dictated by your players. But, make no mistake, you do have to choose.

The players go into a tower and find a letter that claims that one PC might be the illegitimate child of Evard. Interesting content. But, presentated without any emotion, any attempt to evoke any sort of feeling or reaction, simply as bare bones description - You find a letter. It's to your mother. It says you are Evard's child. - is going to fall very, very flat in some groups and do well in others, as evidenced in this thread.

Does that explain sufficiently why the distinction is being made?

 

[pemerton]

Down the street you can hear pemerton scream

You seem to be projecting.