Henry
Autoexreginated
[MENTION=158]Henry[/MENTION], I SO am stealing that line for my next D&D session.![]()
I can’t take credit for it, sadly — Stu Venable from Happy Jack’s RPG Podcast is friggin’ hilarious.
[MENTION=158]Henry[/MENTION], I SO am stealing that line for my next D&D session.![]()
I’m not sure what you mean by “well enough”. I’m claiming that as long as the situation is clearly understood by the players, which is an issue with communication, not with quality of form/literary merit, and it fails to interest them nevertheless, that focusing on the artistry of its presentation is unlikely to generate the desired interest in the situation and is more likely to resemble some other form of entertainment that relies on such artistry, like a novel or a movie.
My bad. I was using “flowery language” as a euphemism for formal quality in narration, which I thought was fairly obvious. Sorry if that has caused any confusion in the discussion.
This is fine if, by literary endeavour, you means an activity that deploys and/or relies upon some devices used in literary composition. But that's not what the OP meant, and I think it is fairly clear what the OP did mean: quality of composition, with particular reference to the narration and descriptions used by the GM.I just realized that there is a very simple test we can perform to prove my point.
Can I play a character in your game that is 100% outside of genre? So, an elven wizard in a Call of Cthulu game or a Battlemech Pilot in your D&D game, or whatever. Can I sit down at your table with a character that is completely wrong for the genre of your game and play that character?
If you just said no, then literary is core to your game. Because the only justification, really, is that such a character is breaking genre. If the literary was of so little importance that it doesn't even rate at your table, then you should have not so much as a quibble when I show up to your Pendragon game with a Deadpool knockoff.
Sure, you can argue about power problems, but, I can always come up with genre breaking examples where the power levels wouldn't be an issue (a jedi in a D&D game for example) but, there is zero chance that a DM would let me play it.
Thus, Rpging is a literary endevour.
Again, most of this is rebutting a claim that was not made.[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] - perhaps I missed it, but, the point I brought up about using literary techniques, IMO, does speak strongly to the notion that we do need "literary qualities" in an RPG. Without trope, theme, character, and the like, an RPG is simply a really complex board game. All of these aspects, all of these literary techniques, be it clarity of explanation, foreshadowing (which, [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], I accept that you do not use, but are present in MANY modules), pathetic fallacies, language to evoke tone and mood, the use of in medias res techniques. Flashbacks. Since we're going to start quoting from esoteric RPG's that virtually no one plays, I've played 3:16 Carnage Beyond the Stars which uses flashback as a major element of the game. Never minding games like Amber Diceless and the like which force the players to use language to define in game events.
Heck, even the notion of Aspects as a driving feature of play (from FATE, or the like) is drawn straight from literary techniques and improv techniques as well.
[MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] brushes this off by saying that RPG's borrow from the literary. I'm not sure why that suddenly matters. It comes from literary sources, and , it influences how RPG's work, thus RPGing becomes something of a literary endevour. Oh, and, let's not forget things like LARP or the like, which is even more heavily dependent upon the literary and theatrical. Or, perhaps those aren't really RPG's?
I'm frankly baffled how anyone could come to the conclusion that the literary isn't required in an RPG. Or, to put it another way, without referring to a single element from literature writing or creation, like genre, mood or tone, explain why I can't play a Jedi in your D&D game. Or a Star Fleet officer. In the game with the English Butler, why can't I be a viking or a catgirl or an animated teapot?
Obviously I'm not [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION], but I assume that Hriston's answer would be the same as mine: what counts as quality material, in the context of RPGing, is not context-independent.If what you are claiming above is true then if given the same quality content that is communicated clearly there should never be deviation in how players respond to it (either being interested or not interested)... which begs the question if it's purely a question of quality of content and clarity then why can numerous DM's try to hook their players to interact with the same content and get totally different responses from their players insofar as interest is concerned? Are you saying any and every DM who can't get his players interested in quality content must not be clearly communicating with their players? If not what are you saying is the cause?
I just realized that there is a very simple test we can perform to prove my point.
Can I play a character in your game that is 100% outside of genre? So, an elven wizard in a Call of Cthulu game or a Battlemech Pilot in your D&D game, or whatever. Can I sit down at your table with a character that is completely wrong for the genre of your game and play that character?
If you just said no, then literary is core to your game. Because the only justification, really, is that such a character is breaking genre. If the literary was of so little importance that it doesn't even rate at your table, then you should have not so much as a quibble when I show up to your Pendragon game with a Deadpool knockoff.
Sure, you can argue about power problems, but, I can always come up with genre breaking examples where the power levels wouldn't be an issue (a jedi in a D&D game for example) but, there is zero chance that a DM would let me play it.
Thus, Rpging is a literary endevour.
Can I play a character in your game that is 100% outside of genre? So, an elven wizard in a Call of Cthulu game or a Battlemech Pilot in your D&D game, or whatever. Can I sit down at your table with a character that is completely wrong for the genre of your game and play that character?
All of these aspects, all of these literary techniques, be it clarity of explanation, foreshadowing (which, @Bedrockgames, I accept that you do not use, but are present in MANY modules), pathetic fallacies, language to evoke tone and mood, the use of in medias res techniques. Flashbacks. Since we're going to start quoting from esoteric RPG's that virtually no one plays, I've played 3:16 Carnage Beyond the Stars which uses flashback as a major element of the game. Never minding games like Amber Diceless and the like which force the players to use language to define in game events.
Heck, even the notion of Aspects as a driving feature of play (from FATE, or the like) is drawn straight from literary techniques and improv techniques as well.
@Bedrockgames brushes this off by saying that RPG's borrow from the literary. I'm not sure why that suddenly matters. It comes from literary sources, and , it influences how RPG's work, thus RPGing becomes something of a literary endevour. Oh, and, let's not forget things like LARP or the like, which is even more heavily dependent upon the literary and theatrical. Or, perhaps those aren't really RPG's?
I'm frankly baffled how anyone could come to the conclusion that the literary isn't required in an RPG. Or, to put it another way, without referring to a single element from literature writing or creation, like genre, mood or tone, explain why I can't play a Jedi in your D&D game. Or a Star Fleet officer. In the game with the English Butler, why can't I be a viking or a catgirl or an animated teapot?
This is fine if, by literary endeavour, you means an activity that deploys and/or relies upon some devices used in literary composition. But that's not what the OP meant, and I think it is fairly clear what the OP did mean: quality of composition, with particular reference to the narration and descriptions used by the GM.
I consider genre fiction and literature two very different things. And once again, even if I didn't make that distinction. The fact that other mediums are present doesn't make RPG those things. RPGs borrow from movies all the time too. That doesn't make RPGs a cinematic endeavor. Now if you want your RPGs to be cinematic, great! Go for it. But don't tell other people their RPGs have to be literary or cinematic just because you like like it (by the way, I am a fan of games with a cinematic bent). Don't you see how this is ultimately just a playstyle argument as you are presenting it?
Obviously I'm not [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION], but I assume that Hriston's answer would be the same as mine: what counts as quality material, in the context of RPGing, is not context-independent.
I started the thread. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is free to say what he likes about the dependence of much RPGing on the logic of genres (it's something I myself have been posting about for maybe 10+ years on these boards). But those things don't rebut the claim in the OP, which is pretty clear:Another thread that has fallen victim to the PRP(Pemerton Redefinition Program).
me said:RPGing requires narration: GMs describe situations, and players declare actions for their PCs that respond to those situations. But I don't think the literary quality of that narration is important.
What matters to me is that the players feel the significance of the situations the GM describes
This is not true. There's no general connection between use of adjectives and literary quality. Police use adjectives a lot in their public statements. Builders use adjectives to describe their projects. Children use adjectives to describe their bodily sensations. Etc. Using adjectives is part and parcel of describing things. But describing things isn't, per se, a literary activity.You basically have to completely ignore adjectives to avoid being literary with your descriptions
I started the thread. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is free to say what he likes about the dependence of much RPGing on the logic of genres (it's something I myself have been posting about for maybe 10+ years on these boards). But those things don't rebut the claim in the OP, which is pretty clear:
And your claim that I'm derailing is itself derailing. Asking whether activity A answers to aesthetic criteria X of activity B is standard stuff. Eg is movie-making a theatric endeavour? or is house-painting an artistic endeavour? The only people I know who regularly turn this sort of question into debates about the meaning of words - as opposed to the obviously-intended discussion about the nature of some activity - are all ENworld posters.
The definition of literary rebuts the OP all by itself. You can't just redefine things to suit your whims.
You can't derail something that is already off the rails and has been since the OP.![]()
You can play the game without being cinematic, but unless you bare bones descriptions to "You see a guy wearing plate mail and holding a sword," you are being literary with your descriptions. As soon as you tell us that he has sandy blond hair, you are being literary. If he has battered plate mail, or gleaming plate mail and you let the players know that, you are being literary. You basically have to completely ignore adjectives to avoid being literary with your descriptions, and I've never played in a game like that. Nor would I ever want play in a game like that.
Is RPGing a […] endeavour?
I don’t think that RPGs are without literary merit. I don’t think they cannot contain literary quality. But the insistence that they must contain a certain level of quality in that regard is absurd.
I would say the insistence that the level of quality (even if it's just hitting the bare minimum to grab players interest) doesn't matter and is not core to the game is absurd. And I'd say evidence of this is the hoops being jumped through to narrow the definition of "literary quality" to only encompass long- winded or "flowery" description when it actually encompasses much more..
But that's just it....there's a range that is being discussed. Where exactly each person's preference falls in that range is going to vary. And that's fine. I provided actual literary examples of authors who are known to provide highly rendered prose, and others who use a minimalist approach. Both are literary in that sense. Applying the term as broadly as that is ignoring the original point that was being made.
It's not about long winded or flowery language, per se, it's more about the craft of the narration being the primary concern. Is it more important that I as GM convey the situation clearly to the players, or is it more meaningful that I do so in a way that attempts to evoke a certain emotion or tone or mood?
I think it's clear that actual communication is more important than evocative description. I don't even know how this can be argued, unless you insist that anything the GM says is literary.
Having said that, I think that using evocative narration is certainly a powerful tool to engage players. I certainly use it at times in my games. I use other techniques that we'd probably classify as literary, as well.
But I think if I'm ever in a situation where I think it's a choice between being clear and establishing the situation, or being evocative and establishing a mood, then I think I have to go with the first option out of necessity.
If you're not sure what I mean refer to the last post by @Maxperson for a pretty succinct explanation.
Descriptions are what make the situation interesting. I can give you a situation of 10 gargoyles on a hill. One DM will make it bland and dull, the other through descriptions will make it interesting and exciting.
Yep. I've been in RPGs that were dull and played like a board game. Bored game?
If what you are claiming above is true then if given the same quality content that is communicated clearly there should never be deviation in how players respond to it (either being interested or not interested)... which begs the question if it's purely a question of quality of content and clarity then why can numerous DM's try to hook their players to interact with the same content and get totally different responses from their players insofar as interest is concerned? Are you saying any and every DM who can't get his players interested in quality content must not be clearly communicating with their players? If not what are you saying is the cause?
Oh I was just making sure you understood that one did not equate to the other but it appears you already knew that and still chose to use "flowery language".