Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

[Maxperson]

What I will say is, yes I want the GM to have a conversation with the players and I want the GM to speak in an everyday voice, not put on an act. Obviously I am not going to be a jerk to a GM who does things the other way. And I am not going to ruin anyone's fun if the GM at the table decides to describe things in a literary way.

"A dialogue is a literary technique in which writers employ two or more characters to be engaged in conversation with one another. In literature, it is a conversational passage, or a spoken or written exchange of conversation in a group, or between two persons directed towards a particular subject."

What you do is literary, too.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You disagree, because you don't seem to understand what storyteller means here. Even giving description 1 is telling a story. Creating any content at all, improv or planned in advance is telling a story. You are telling a story when you run the game, it just isn't as important to you as to some others, so the quality of the narration of your story doesn't matter to you. You are a storyteller, though. All DMs are.

Then your definition story is so broad it is as useless and as subject to equivocation as the definition of literary we have been using in this thread. If story always happens no matter what, then I guess you got me. But we all know perfectly well that there is more to stories than descriptions and using language. And we know that around the bend from that assertion are more assertions about how RPGs should be like stories (and those assertions are going to equivocate on other parts of the definition of story).

Look, I have seen why the GM as storyteller just doesn't work for me in play. When I used to concieve of it as such, the games were less fun for me and my players. When I abandoned that model, my games vastly improved. Now, that doesn't mean it has to be the case for you. Maybe it works for you. That is great. I have no problem with that. I am not telling you how to run, play or think of games. But do you understand that is what you are doing to me? You are demanding I see RPGs in the same way as you. Even though I've been exactly where you are and it wasn't for me.

 

[Bedrockgames]

"A dialogue is a literary technique in which writers employ two or more characters to be engaged in conversation with one another. In literature, it is a conversational passage, or a spoken or written exchange of conversation in a group, or between two persons directed towards a particular subject."

What you do is literary, too.

This is a really bizarre argument. I am not a character in a book. I honestly don't know how to respond to this post. Are you really serious?

 

[Maxperson]

It isn't about making them jump through hoops. I just don't worry that every single detail in my head like that is automatically conveyed. I assume the players are there interacting with the world and in life you can miss those kinds of obviously details sometimes. The asking part is a bit like the players looking more closely at certain details. I get that you don't enjoy doing things like I do. I am not trying to convince you to change your style. But I can assure you, doing it the way I do, is something I vastly prefer to the approach you are suggesting (and I know because I've been GMing for more than 30 years and in that time made heavy use of the approach you are advocating). My focus is much more on what is going on, reacting to the things the players try to do, etc than on how I am describing things. Like I said, I approach it as a regular conversation. In a regular conversation I may not always give this detail or that (even important details----though I would try to mention things I think are obvious and important). But if I don't, I don't sweat it because it is just a game.

This is the description 2: "this hideous horse sized creature appears to be a twisted hybrid of beetle, mantis and maggot. It stinks of carrion and blood." Were you and I having a conversation and I was going to describe that things to you, that's how I would do it. Nothing there is anything other than conversational.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm curious... would you have an issue with a GM who speaks in the first person when stating what an NPC says? What if he does or does not use a different voice for said NPC... does that make a difference?

EDIT: Or do you only run and play in games that stay in the 3rd person?

I prefer first person actually. I have no problem with GMs who speak in first person as NPCs (though I don't think it is a requirement of play because I know lots of people who don't like to speak in first person in games and get by just fine). In terms of voices, I tend to find them off putting unless the GM in question has enough charm and charisma to pull them off (not acting chops, but just charm and charisma). My friend Rob is particularly good at this for example and I enjoy his game a lot. But I am fine with any delivery that suits the personality of the GM in question. If I have a GM friend who is naturally very reserved and dry, I don't expect their NPCs to be different than them in voice and tone. Like I said much earlier in this thread: I am not there to judge peoples' performances. I don't see it as the GM needing to do all these things to impress me. I just want the GM to run the game in a way that feels natural. I find heavy use of narrative descriptions, don't feel very natural to me, can often get very dull and just are not what I am looking for.

 

[Maxperson]

This is a really bizarre argument. I am not a character in a book. I honestly don't know how to respond to this post. Are you really serious?

A dialogue is a dialogue is a dialogue. A dialogue does not have to be written or even fictional, so you have them whenever you speak to someone else. It's a literary technique. So yes, I am serious. This attempt of yours to try and limit a dialogue to a character in a book seems disingenuous to me.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This is the description 2: "this hideous horse sized creature appears to be a twisted hybrid of beetle, mantis and maggot. It stinks of carrion and blood." Were you and I having a conversation and I was going to describe that things to you, that's how I would do it. Nothing there is anything other than conversational.

I don't find that description very conversational at all. I don't have a single friend who talks that way. I do have plenty of friends who say things like "Have you seen X movie? It is a bit like the creature in the final scene".

 

[Bedrockgames]

A dialogue is a dialogue is a dialogue. A dialogue does not have to be written or even fictional, so you have them whenever you speak to someone else. It's a literary technique. So yes, I am serious. This attempt of yours to try and limit a dialogue to a character in a book seems disingenuous to me.

Go back and re-read the definition of dialogue yourself posted. That definition doesn't extend to the real world. It is about content generated by an author. I don't want to be harsh, but this is a really bad argument you are making right now.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It doesn't create two meanings. The single meaning is that the set of all things literature is everything written, and that a subset of literature is more highly prized. That's why both are part of one definition, instead of two like when a word actually does have two meanings.

Those are important distinctions and in this conversation, distinction A is being used to persuade us that RPGS are literary, however distinction B is being brought in once we accept that to make an argument for what RPGs and GMs should do. That is the definition of equivocation. Equivocation relies on words carrying multiple meanings and having those kinds of distinctions.

 

[Maxperson]

Go back and re-read the definition of dialogue yourself posted. That definition doesn't extend to the real world. It is about content generated by an author. I don't want to be harsh, but this is a really bad argument you are making right now.

I didn't post a definition of dialogue. I posted something that said dialogue was a literary technique. Here's the definition. As you can see, you engage in dialogue whenever you are in conversation.

dialogue noun
di·​a·​logue | \ ˈdī-ə-ˌlȯg , -ˌläg\
variants: or less commonly dialog
Definition of dialogue (Entry 1 of 2)
1 : a written composition in which two or more characters are represented as conversing

2a : a conversation between two or more persons
b : an exchange of ideas and opinions
c : a discussion between representatives of parties to a conflict that is aimed at resolution

3 : the conversational element of literary or dramatic composition

4 : a musical composition for two or more parts suggestive of a conversation

dialogue verb
dialogued; dialoguing
Definition of dialogue (Entry 2 of 2)
transitive verb

: to express in dialogue

: to take part in a dialogue