Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

[Imaro]

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.

I find that interesting since I would say speaking in character is performance/presentation vs. having a natural conversation... wouldn't you? Or do you see it differently?

Also wanted to address the it's not core statements you keep making... perhaps the individual specific examples being presented aren't core... but the fact that at least one is used in most people's game seems to me to lean towards performance/presentation in some way or another being core to most if not all games...

 

[Bedrockgames]

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

But now you are equivocating again. Definition 1 is literary. Definition 2 is not literary. There is nothing literary about two people having a conversation in real life. There is something literary about me writing a scene where two characters talk. If you really want to press this point we can continue going back and forth, and eventually I may slip and you may find some kind of rhetorical victory, but I assure you that your premise is wrong. This is one of the strangest arguments I've ever encountered.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Um. Nobody has been arguing about what RPGs and DMs should do. That's your deflection, not anything we're doing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I find that interesting since I would say speaking in character is performance/presentation vs. having a natural conversation... wouldn't you? Or do you see it differently?

Both me and Pemerton have addressed this point. I think we made the point somewhat differently but essentially described it more as inhabiting the character than as performing. There can be performative aspects to it, but I don't worry so much about them. This is particularly the case on the player end. As far as I am concerned what matters is the first person, not that the player portray a character. They could be playing themselves in the first person and I would be fine with it. Obviously the GM has to run multiple characters who exist in the world, so they need to account for things like personality and knowledge the character has. But I don't expect a performance in the sense of using voices, gestures, etc.

Also wanted to address the it's not core statements you keep making... perhaps the individual specific examples being presented aren't core... but the fact that at least one is used in most people's game seems to me to lean towards performance/presentation in some way or another being core to most if not all games...

Again, I think so much of this thread is really about playstyle. And you see that when we talk about playstyel differences. I think talking about the specific example is much more productive than the general rules and general terms (because the terms are quite broad, and obviously there are places where I may agree performance could matter). It is just the way things like performance, presentations, etc have been used are done so to paint a picture of RPGs that doesn't match how Pemerton or I see the game. When we talk about specifics, it becomes easy to hash over those differences. When we talk in generalities, it becomes more like maneuvering a chess piece in the conversation to force people to accept specifics before they arise. I am really not trying to be difficult here. But I've just been in enough of these kinds of discussions to get that. And I think it is important to push people to talk about what they are really talking about. And what we are really talking about isn't categorization or modeling of the RPG experience, we are talking about how we want the game to be run and how we want games to be made (and you see that because it repeatedly comes up and people repeatedly argue over it).

 

[Bedrockgames]

Um. Nobody has been arguing about what RPGs and DMs should do. That's your deflection, not anything we're doing.

Um, yes they have. Repeatedly. I believe you have as well. Read the thread. People do keep making claims about how games ought to be designed and packaged, and how GMs should engage their players. You can deny it but I keep getting into arguments with people who thing the game should be run differently than I think it should be.

Here is just one example taken from the last page of the thread pretty much randomly:

perhaps a better question might be, "Should an RPG attempt to being a literary endevour". To which, I would answer a resounding yes. That I will try and fail doesn't bother me too much. But that we shouldn't try at all? That's just sad.

 

[Maxperson]

But now you are equivocating again. Definition 1 is literary. Definition 2 is not literary. There is nothing literary about two people having a conversation in real life. There is something literary about me writing a scene where two characters talk. If you really want to press this point we can continue going back and forth, and eventually I may slip and you may find some kind of rhetorical victory, but I assure you that your premise is wrong. This is one of the strangest arguments I've ever encountered.

Literature does not have to be written. It is also oral.

https://virtualspeech.com/blog/literary-techniques-for-a-speech

https://www.britannica.com/art/literature

"But already it is necessary to qualify these statements. To use the word writing when describing literature is itself misleading, for one may speak of “oral literature” or “the literature of preliterate peoples.” The art of literature is not reducible to the words on the page; they are there solely because of the craft of writing. As an art, literature might be described as the organization of words to give pleasure. Yet through words literature elevates and transforms experience beyond “mere” pleasure. Literature also functions more broadly in society as a means of both criticizing and affirming cultural values."

 

[Maxperson]

Here is just one example taken from the last page of the thread pretty much randomly:

RPGs ARE a literary endeavor. Period. They are both written(literature) and spoken(literary).

 

[Bedrockgames]

RPGs ARE a literary endeavor. Period. They are both written(literature) and spoken(literary).

Asserting that doesn't make it so. And saying they are literary because they have words and people speak words when they play them, isn't a good reason to ask people to accept other elements of literature (that have nothing to do with those facts) as part of RPGs.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Literature does not have to be written. It is also oral.

https://virtualspeech.com/blog/literary-techniques-for-a-speech

https://www.britannica.com/art/literature

"But already it is necessary to qualify these statements. To use the word writing when describing literature is itself misleading, for one may speak of “oral literature” or “the literature of preliterate peoples.” The art of literature is not reducible to the words on the page; they are there solely because of the craft of writing. As an art, literature might be described as the organization of words to give pleasure. Yet through words literature elevates and transforms experience beyond “mere” pleasure. Literature also functions more broadly in society as a means of both criticizing and affirming cultural values."

Did you read the last paragraph of that?

Edit: Also, this doesn't respond to the point I made in post at all. This is just another argument on top of your previous one. If you want me to continue engaging a silly discussion about how everything under the sun is literary, including conversations in grocery stores, than you should respond to the actual points I made in my post.

 

[Maxperson]

Asserting that doesn't make it so.

True. Facts make it so. I'm just asserting the facts.

And saying they are literary because they have words and people speak words when they play them, isn't a good reason to ask people to accept other elements of literature (that have nothing to do with those facts) as part of RPGs.

Okay.