Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

[hawkeyefan]

All most/all of us on the other side are saying is that it matters... Just because something is a core aspect of something doesn't mean it's the most important aspect of something. Headlights in modern times are a core component of a car... I wouldn't say they are the most important though.

Sure. I don't think the OP or most following posts are saying that the presentation doesn't matter at all, just that it's secondary to the actual content.

I don't see presentation as being wholly absent, though. I absolutely use presentation to evoke mood and so on. Others likely use more, and some other folks likely less, but I do use it.

I'd agree with your recent post that an interesting scenario can be rendered uninteresting due to poor presentation. But I don't think that an uninteresting scenario can be made to be interesting due to presentation. So for me, what's most important is the content.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Imaro]

Sure. I don't think the OP or most following posts are saying that the presentation doesn't matter at all, just that it's secondary to the actual content.

I don't see presentation as being wholly absent, though. I absolutely use presentation to evoke mood and so on. Others likely use more, and some other folks likely less, but I do use it.

I'd agree with your recent post that an interesting scenario can be rendered uninteresting due to poor presentation. But I don't think that an uninteresting scenario can be made to be interesting due to presentation. So for me, what's most important is the content.

I think if you say something isn't core you are saying it can be removed and is not necessary for play.

EDIT: Which is to say if the original discussion had been framed around what was more/most important as opposed to what is core there would have probably been less push back.

 

[Hriston]

Again you are assuming the situation itself is uninteresting. Which is too say an interesting situation can be made to seem uninteresting, when presented badly.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at, but bad presentation doesn't necessarily follow from not prioritizing quality of form in presentation.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Very briefly-

You understand that evoking emotion will have some similar, and some different, aspects depending on the medium, correct?

So, for example, a horror book, a horror movie, and a horror story told around the campfire will have some techniques that are similar, and some that are different.

But no one would (should?) say that a horror movie doesn't use presentation, just because it's different.

Or that a horror story told around the campfire doesn't use presentation, just because there is call and response.

Presentation isn't a word people objected to, and no one has said presentation isn't used or present. People have disagreed over how important performance and literary techniques are. Yes, a roleplaying game can use some of the techniques you find in a horror novel, but it doesn't mean those techniques translate as well or as commonly into an RPG. Something that is required to make a horror novel work, is a tool I can easily ignore in an RPG.

This is getting a pretty fundamental divide. Do you see the GM as a narrator and storyteller or do you see the GM as a facilitator or adjudicator? I think those of us who see the GM as the latter, tend not to care as much about the details of the narration because we see those details as largely less important than content or mechanics. We are more focused on the stuff created from the conversation between the GM and players because to us, that is where true player freedom to explore arises (even though people like me and Pemerton strongly, strongly disagree on how that freedom ought to play out in terms of mechanics and procedure). Unless what the GM is saying has an actual impact on mechanics or content, it is kind of not real to me. If it is purely coloring, and not something that is meaningful in the setting, then it is just pretty words the GM is using to wrap a bow around the scenario.

Again, I am not trying to attack your preferences here. I am just explaining my preferences, my approach because I want you to understand why you are meeting so much resistance to these ideas (rather than be baffled by my resistance or concluding it is coming from a desire to be combative). I am just sensing very fundamental differences of preference underlying so much of what is going on. And a lot of it seems to be preferences that people assume are ubiquitous (when they are not).

 

[Hriston]

One more time-

Hemingway has one style.

Nabokov has a different style.

One is sparse and clean. One isn't.

Both are (for lack of a better phrase) "literary."

I'd say they both fit the usage of literary used in the OP because the work of both authors is literature "of the kind valued for quality of form", which is a standard definition of the word. Now, I think it's debatable whether playing an RPG is participating in literature (I'd say it probably is, but it would depend on your definition of literature and is beyond the scope of this thread), but I don't think quality of form is a focal point for the majority of instances of play. I think the main thrust of the activity has more to do with imagining and engaging with the content, which isn't dependent on formal quality.

(You understand that some of us don't appreciate comments like, oh, that "genre" stuff isn't literary, or that there is some "hack" quality to it- I thought this was ended no later than the 1950s, man, at least with Cahiers Du Cinema (Hitchcock?) and our ability to understand that literary quality isn't confined to high art, and that today's low art is tomorrow's high art. I mean- that's they type of comment used to keep the preferences of nerds like us in the shadows for so long. It's terrible that we see it parroted here.


Also? Showmanship? C'mon. Why not just say flowery language? "Hey guys, you know what sucks? I really hate those acting types." Of course, none of this would have been an issue if a thread hadn't been created to expressly denigrate presentation. I swear, it's like someone created a thread saying, "Optimizers are the worst ever," and then getting all offended when people saying, "How dare all these people come here and defend optimization? Why are they attacking roleplaying?")

I don't think the OP intended to express elitism with regard to what constitutes a literary endeavor. I certainly didn't mean to suggest any connotation of "high" or "low" in my posts. When I've used terms like showmanship or flowery language (purple is another word that I was tempted to use), it was to illustrate a contrast between the informal, colloquial character of RPG gaming in the spoken vernacular, with a more contrived approach that could be said to be literary in the sense that the OP used the word.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Bedrockgames]

One last time-

You might not be intending it, but can you please stop with the condescension? I am not trying to be difficult but it is difficult to communicate with you calmly when your posts begin or end with these kinds of sentiments.

That's the OP. This isn't about the DM regaling a captive playerbase with funny voices.

This is about devaluing the efforts of players and DMs, whether it's in creating terrain, making illustrations of their characters, or engaging each other in a creative enterprise with quality.

That you don't see it that way, well, whatever. But let me make this 100% clear, again (and @Hriston as well)-

This isn't about some type of "Y'all have to play like Critical Role" agenda. No, this is about a very specific claim, being advanced in the OP, stating that his style of play is what matters in RPGs, and that what the rest of us do doesn't matter.

That's not cool. Now, carry on- but more than enough words have been spent explaining this, and, TBH, I am a little tired of this thread and this debate, which is simply solved by stating, "Hey, play like you want. Just stop peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining."

Or, more simply- the things I enjoy are core to my RPG experience. Good?


Good.

We have been over this before. I sincerely have a different reading of what you OP is saying than you. Especially in light of the OP's later clarifications (where he tried to make more clear to me where he and I agree or disagree from one another). All he is saying here is the thing that matters to him isn't the GM's narration. He isn't saying emotion is absent from the table. He is saying doesn't feel afraid simply because the GM narrates in the style of lovecraft, barker or king. And he isn't saying this is how the game has to operate for you. He is giving his personal take on it. For him, the quality of the narration isn't that important. I find exactly the same thing. I don't even really want the GM to narrate to be honest. At least I don't want the feeling of being by a campfire listen to someone narrate if that makes sense. I want information and details as the conversation unfolds. But I don't want each scene, event, situation, etc to feel like it opens with the equivalent of boxed text from the GM.

And frankly I feel exactly the same way about it in that respect. I think the game more as a conversation just fits better with how I see play. Now we are talking about something very subjective. I don't expect you to see play the same way I do. But I don't think I should have to adopt a model of play I don't grok or that doesn't connect to how I see things.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Bedrockgames]

Some of us may have a slightly different opinion of what the OP is saying, and the different explanations that are provided; but we believe that our style of play is being denigrated, and that his style of play is presented as an almost more enlightened approach.


That you happen to agree with him, in the instant case, does not change the .... presentation.

I think of all people on this thread, I have the most reason to be wary of Pemerton's posts (if you think that thread was bad, read the racist colonialist orcs thread). When I saw the OP I initially read it in a negative light. But I made a point of re-reading to see if I was reading my own feelings into it. I reached the conclusions this was very different from our previous discussion. Also, in that thread, I was guilty of plenty of emotional and angry posts myself. Just because I was ticked off at Pemerton in that thread (and I think with some fair amount of good reason), doesn't mean I need to always be negatively disposed towards him. As I took pains to say in that thread, I do admire Pemerton's intelligence and I do admire his ability to make a good argument. I would be foolish not to consider his posts fairly because when he does make a good point, it is often insightful.

I don't see him denigrating a style in this case. In fact in this argument, I think it is the other side that is largely doing the denigrating. Just because I disagreed with him before or thought he was being a bit rude about something before, doesn't mean he is always wrong or that I, and others, are never also being rude. I would encourage you to read some of the posts by yourself and by others on your side of this debate again and then look at our responses to them. There have been moments where I've responded more emotionally than I would have liked, but on the whole I feel I have been reacting fairly calmly given the tone of some of the posts directed at me.

Also, please don't go mining my prior posts to post a gotcha of me in this thread. I understand why you are doing it, but in my view, that doesn't show a lot of good faith. If I have to defend not only my posts on this thread, but posts I've made in previous threads, that isn't exactly a friendly discussion and starts to feel more like an inquisition.