• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

Riley37

Villager
The post you quoted is nearly 400 words, has two footnotes and an edit, and references Hemingway and Henry Miller.
So why are you replying to my four-word (and a link) post, rather than replying directly to the 400-word post?

Perhaps because I said the same thing, but more elegantly, and you hope to elicit further elegant responses, by engaging with me rather than with the anti-paladin?
 
So why are you replying to my four-word (and a link) post, rather than replying directly to the 400-word post?

Perhaps because I said the same thing, but more elegantly, and you hope to elicit further elegant responses, by engaging with me rather than with the anti-paladin?
Having just re-read [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION]'s post, I think I may have misread - by "my last post" perhaps he mean "my previous post" (the next bit of the post itself is not legible for me because of some text formatting issue, but maybe it's a quote of a previous post?).

I feel that reinforces my view that meta-comments (ie on the quality and formal properties of poster's posts, as opposed to what they're actually saying) is generally unproductive.

by engaging with me rather than with the anti-paladin
When I play a FRPG I nearly always play a paladin (or similar archetype). Presumably that's more evidence of something-or-other.
 

Ovinomancer

Explorer
Alright, Ovinomancer, please issue a ruling:

Should I evaluate Hriston's assertion only according to its literal content?

Or does context change the value of its content?

Is it true... from a certain point of view? That is, the point of view, which equates Hriston with nobody?

Archaic allusion time:

Q: Who did Polyphemos hate, even more than Odysseus?

A: Nobody!
If there's an honest question in there, could you fish it out for me?
 

Aldarc

Explorer
Archaic allusion time:

Q: Who did Polyphemos hate, even more than Odysseus?

A: Nobody!
Though I love this reference, I do have to quibble. Polyphemos did not hate "Nobody" (Οὖτις) more than Odysseus, because in his escape Odysseus reveals his actual name to Polyphemos, who then prays to Poseidon for vengeance.
 

Maxperson

Orcus on an on Day
I don't disagree. But you are misreading what I am saying. I am saying exactly because what you said is true we should pay more attention to substance than packaging, more attention to a person's ideas than the rhetoric they wrap it up in, and more attention to what a GM is actually saying than the way they are saying it.

So I wasn't denying that people pay attention to how things are said. I didn't say this wasn't the case. My statement was saying it shouldn't be the case. It is an ought statement. Wouldn't you agree the things you mention in your quote are bad? Doesn't this suggest we should pay more attention to substance than delivery? The example I gave was from I, Claudius. In that scene, which I tweaked to fit to this context, he is speaking to the Senate after the Praetorians declared him emperor. One of the issues the senate is concerned about is his mind and his stammer. So he says what a man says is more important than how long he takes to say it.
It wouldn't be charisma if it didn't work. ;)

Speaking of charisma. In my games I make note of the charisma of the PCs. Even if the most eloquent player gives me an amazing speech, if his PC has a charisma of 4 I'm going to filter that speech though his charisma and the NPCs will hear it different. Conversely, a stammering and stuttering player whose PC is a charisma 20 paladin, will have his speech filtered through the 20 charisma and the NPCs will hear it much more favorably.

That may make it seem like content matters more than presentation, but I don't think that it does. Even with the filter, the presentation still matters just as much as the content. I'm just adjusting the presentation to match the charisma. Both presentation and content matter equally in my opinion.
 

Imaro

Adventurer
.... the presentation still matters just as much as the content. I'm just adjusting the presentation to match the charisma. Both presentation and content matter equally in my opinion.
This pretty much sums up my stance since this thread began. It's like asking what's more important in playing basketball, being able to dribble or being able to shoot... Both are, even though you could technically play a good game without doing one or the other and/or putting emphasis on one over the other.
 

Aldarc

Explorer
This pretty much sums up my stance since this thread began. It's like asking what's more important in playing basketball, being able to dribble or being able to shoot... Both are, even though you could technically play a good game without doing one or the other and/or putting emphasis on one over the other.
My take on this thread debate using basketball: What's more important in playing basketball, being able to dribble, shoot, and set up plays or developing a theatrical style to your gameplay.
 

Maxperson

Orcus on an on Day
My take on this thread debate using basketball: What's more important in playing basketball, being able to dribble, shoot, and set up plays or developing a theatrical style to your gameplay.
Bad analogy. This thread debate using basketball would be... What's more important in playing basketball, offense, defense, shooting or dribbling? Theatrics in most sports is nearly non-existent. It shows up a little bit after touchdowns, goals and such, but for most of the game it's not there.

If you wanted to use a "sport" where theatrics and the sport might be on equal ground, go with the WWE. That contains enough theatrics during the entire event to contend with the content of wrestling.
 

Imaro

Adventurer
My take on this thread debate using basketball: What's more important in playing basketball, being able to dribble, shoot, and set up plays or developing a theatrical style to your gameplay.
Yep and that's why no meaningful discussion is taking place between the two main sides of this argument. You see it as totally superfluous to the game while I and others see it as an integral part of the whole... of course if every time we bring up an example it gets put in the..that's not what we are talking about bin... but when a definite line is asked for it's brushed off as not really required (because of course the people who see it as superfluous all agree on where the line is...the superfluous stuff of course!!.... it's easy to see how such disparate views arise and understanding is minimal.
 

Aldarc

Explorer
Bad analogy. This thread debate using basketball would be... What's more important in playing basketball, offense, defense, shooting or dribbling? Theatrics in most sports is nearly non-existent. It shows up a little bit after touchdowns, goals and such, but for most of the game it's not there.

If you wanted to use a "sport" where theatrics and the sport might be on equal ground, go with the WWE. That contains enough theatrics during the entire event to contend with the content of wrestling.
This certainly shows you don't watch much basketball. Theatrics are definitely there. It's part of the dunks, the juking, the fade aways, the finishes, and playstyles of many players. Legendary basketball player Julius Erving (Dr. J.) even got his start in a league dedicated to the theatrics of basketball: the Harlem Globetrotters. ;)
 

Imaro

Adventurer
This certainly shows you don't watch much basketball. Theatrics are definitely there. It's part of the dunks, the juking, the fade aways, the finishes, and playstyles of many players. Legendary basketball player Julius Erving (Dr. J.) even got his start in a league dedicated to the theatrics of basketball: the Harlem Globetrotters. ;)
The analogy was with the game of basketball, not with how it's played in specific arenas...NBA & Globetrotter exhibitions (which aren't even an example of basketball being played). Unless we are now only talking about RPG's played for presentation to an audience...
 

Aldarc

Explorer
The analogy was with the game of basketball, not with how it's played in specific arenas...NBA & Globetrotter exhibitions (which aren't even an example of basketball being played). Unless we are now only talking about RPG's played for presentation to an audience...
I know, and what I said applies to that.
 

Aldarc

Explorer
Yep and that's why no meaningful discussion is taking place between the two main sides of this argument. You see it as totally superfluous to the game while I and others see it as an integral part of the whole... of course if every time we bring up an example it gets put in the..that's not what we are talking about bin... but when a definite line is asked for it's brushed off as not really required (because of course the people who see it as superfluous all agree on where the line is...the superfluous stuff of course!!.... it's easy to see how such disparate views arise and understanding is minimal.
Not so much superfluous as much as less fundamental to the basics. You will naturally develop a style, but the basics of ball-handling, shooting, and play-making are important fundamentals of the game that propel it forward. Many great players of the game typically have both, but we generally expect one over the other. Those who are style without substance are typically overrated players with nothing to show, while those who are substance over style are more likely to have the stats and accolades than the other way around.
 

Bedrockgames

Villager
That may make it seem like content matters more than presentation, but I don't think that it does. Even with the filter, the presentation still matters just as much as the content. I'm just adjusting the presentation to match the charisma. Both presentation and content matter equally in my opinion.
I do the same thing actually. But this reasoning doesn't make much sense to me. The presentation is the same, you are just interpreting the presentation differently based on a mechanic. However I think we are getting pretty far afield of the crux of the debate. It really isn't about whether one is more important than the other. It is more about what kind of delivery/presentation/description people want. Some of us want a style that is natural, doesn't affect the manner or techniques of novel writing, some of us do want a more literary style of description. We've debated the meanings of these various terms. But I think if we make an attempt to understand the key difference arising, it centers around what kind of descriptions do you want from the GM and do you want them to be more or less literary (i.e. should they be evocative, sound like novel prose, employ literary techniques, etc or should they be more conversational and plain spoken).
 

Imaro

Adventurer
I do the same thing actually. But this reasoning doesn't make much sense to me. The presentation is the same, you are just interpreting the presentation differently based on a mechanic. However I think we are getting pretty far afield of the crux of the debate. It really isn't about whether one is more important than the other. It is more about what kind of delivery/presentation/description people want. Some of us want a style that is natural, doesn't affect the manner or techniques of novel writing, some of us do want a more literary style of description. We've debated the meanings of these various terms. But I think if we make an attempt to understand the key difference arising, it centers around what kind of descriptions do you want from the GM and do you want them to be more or less literary (i.e. should they be evocative, sound like novel prose, employ literary techniques, etc or should they be more conversational and plain spoken).
@Aldarc 's post above yours is definitely about which is more important... And contrary to what you've been saying it's been framed like that by quite a few posters in this thread.

EDIT: Emphasis mine... IMO this would have been a much more interesting discussion topic
 
Last edited:

Bedrockgames

Villager
@Aldarc 's post above yours is definitely about which is more important... And contrary to what you've been saying it's been framed like that by quite a few posters in this thread.

EDIT: Emphasis mine... IMO this would have been a much more interesting discussion topic
Yes, we've been getting sucked into that debate on the thread. We've also been sucked into debates over the meaning of words. I am not denying that. But I think the central conflict is fundamentally over what kinds of descriptions we enjoy from the Gamemaster, and was more at the heart of the conversation. At the very least I think it is a more productive conversation to have. I've entertained some of the definitional arguments and some of the broad principle arguments, but I don't really think there is much to be gained by having them.
 

Aldarc

Explorer
@Aldarc 's post above yours is definitely about which is more important... And contrary to what you've been saying it's been framed like that by quite a few posters in this thread.

EDIT: Emphasis mine... IMO this would have been a much more interesting discussion topic
That's probably because the entire basketball analogy was originally framed in terms of greater importance. ;)
 

Imaro

Adventurer
I do the same thing actually. But this reasoning doesn't make much sense to me. The presentation is the same, you are just interpreting the presentation differently based on a mechanic. However I think we are getting pretty far afield of the crux of the debate. It really isn't about whether one is more important than the other. It is more about what kind of delivery/presentation/description people want. Some of us want a style that is natural, doesn't affect the manner or techniques of novel writing, some of us do want a more literary style of description. We've debated the meanings of these various terms. But I think if we make an attempt to understand the key difference arising, it centers around what kind of descriptions do you want from the GM and do you want them to be more or less literary (i.e. should they be evocative, sound like novel prose, employ literary techniques, etc or should they be more conversational and plain spoken).
Well if you start a thread around that premise I'd be more than happy to discuss since I think there's too much baggage in this thread to have any type of meaningful discussion and alot of posters have already bailed on it.
 

Advertisement

Top